Semantics in Linguistics, Semantic & Logical Errors
In linguistics, syntax, or grammar, has to do with the structure of language, whereas semantics, as a linguistic field, studies the meaning of a linguistic expression and the way it is conveyed.
On the surface, syntax helps us build grammatically acceptable structures that follow the correct word ordering. For instance, the following sentences are syntactically correct thanks to the valid word order (being SOV in Turkish and SVO in English):
Kedi, sütü içti.
The cat drank milk.
Underneath, however, not all syntactically valid structures are meaningful. For example, the sentences below are ordered in the same way as the sentences above, but they are not meaningful, even though they are syntactically acceptable:
*Süt, kediyi içti.
*The milk drank the cat.
To make sense in a grammatically appropriate way, a statement must be both grammatically correct (or syntactically acceptable) and semantically meaningful. Accordingly, any error in the interpretation of the meaning of a sentence becomes a semantic error. A logical fallacy is a generic term that indicates an error of reasoning. Both semantic and logical errors can occur at different levels of language: as word or phrase meaning, at the level of the clausal or sentential structure, or as a broader context.
In any case, an error is deemed grammatical if it causes either confusion about, or non-understanding of, the intended meaning or misunderstanding that conveys a different, unintended, meaning. In short, non-understanding occurs when an error makes a sentence nonsensical, confusing and puzzling the reader, while misunderstanding misleads the reader.
Usage Norms and Common Sense
Not all semantic or logical issues are straight-forward. Like stylistic usages, some semantics-related uses are suggestions only, relying not only on our collective usage habits but also on our common sense. Believed to be something between reason and intuition, common sense is understood to be innate in us, requiring no extra knowledge. Its existence outside of one's basic expertise, or even a reflection or thought, makes it difficult to define, however. Nevertheless, as The Times’ Stylebook optimistically claims, “the rule of common sense will prevail at all times.”
That's said, the perceived universality of common sense makes us all potentially experts, and critics. Even though some usage choices may be mere suggestions, a semantic or a stylistic mishap may provoke mockery and ridiculing, causing more embarrassment than a misspelled word or a misapplied comma.
Common Semantic and Logical Errors
Some common semantic and logical errors that can be found in Turkish include:
Misused word/phrase due to semantic misunderstanding: e.g., collocations
Misused idiomatic or figurative expressions
Misused specialized terms
Ambiguity, or vagueness, of linguistic expression
Ambiguous pronoun-referent tracking: faulty subject/possessor/object drop
Grammatical agreement inconsistency
Ambiguous, or faulty, word order: e.g., a misplaced (“squinting”) adverbial
Anthropomorphic or metonymic fallacy
Examples of Semantic Errors & Logical Fallacies
Misused Word/Phrase
▼
▲ The confusion about the terms tercih (preference) and seçim (choice, selection, or election) may stem from the ways they are used in the descriptions of interactions with the user interface (UI) in computer programs, apps, gadgets, etc. However, even in the UI context, the terms are not interchangeable. In IT, the term preference is used to mean an UI option (e.g., a program setting), as selected by the user, as well as the user's subjective desire that prompts her to make her selection.
In English, it has become a common practice to describe the act of indicating a preference as selecting it rather than choosing it—to keep one's individual choices conceptually separate from one's settings preferences. As users, we thus decide, based on our preferences or desired outcome, which options to choose, which we then select. Semantically, it expresses a subjective notion of one's preference. Therefore, asking a question about which preference is objectively correct makes no sense. Instead, it should be about one’s choice, selection, or decision:
Kimi, hangisini, niçin seçmeliyiz? Seçmedeki ölçümüz ne olacak? Hangi tercihimiz doğru olur? (...) Parti tercihi yön, yol, düzen, medeniyet, zihniyet, reçete tercihidir.
(lit. Whom should we elect, which one, and why? What criteria should we apply when electing? Which preference will be right? […] A party preference is akin to deciding on the direction, path, plan, civilization, mindset, and recommendations.)
Bahaddin Elçi, “Ne sağ ne sol, ne cumhur ne millet, tek seçenek” from Milli Gazete
Revised:
Kimi seçmeliyiz? Seçmedeki ölçümüz ne olacak? Hangi seçimimiz doğru olur? (...) Parti seçimi yön, medeniyet, zihniyet, reçete seçimidir.
Whom should we elect? What criteria should we follow? What is the right choice? […] Choosing a party is akin to deciding on which mindset to adhere to, on which direction to take.
Dash Used to Indicate a Range
▼
▲ Although syntactically illogical, this construction is not considered a usage error in Turkish:
1976-1981 yılları arasında
Revised:
1976 ile 1981 yılları arasında
between (the years of) 1976 and 1981
Misused Phrases, Logical Errors
▼
▲ Here, we have several logical fallacies:
The scope of the restriction does not include something; instead the restriction applies to something, which means that something falls within the scope (the effect) of the restriction.
The sentence states that the identities of the witnesses are in the investigation file, which is not logical:
Bu kısıtlama kapsamına, soruşturma dosyasında bulunan tanıkların kimlikleri de dahildir.
(lit., The scope of this restriction also includes the identities of the witnesses in the investigation file.)
Esra Alan Akcan, “Soruşturma Evresinde Mağdurun Hakları ve Yükümlülükleri”
I imagine, the author means to say the following:
Bu kısıtlama, soruşturma dosyasında kimlikleri bulunan tanıklar için de geçerlidir.
(lit. This restriction also applies to the witnesses whose identities are in the investigation file.)
However, the identities of the witnesses can be known or discovered but they cannot be placed inside a file. The possible revision may be as follows:
Revised 1:
Bu kısıtlama, soruşturma dosyasında isimleri bulunan tanıklar için de geçerlidir.
This restriction also applies to the witnesses whose names appear in the investigation file.
Furthermore, Turkish has a more lexicalized expression of the same:
Revised 2:
Bu kısıtlama soruşturma dosyasında adı geçen tanıklar için de geçerlidir.
This restriction also applies to the witnesses listed/mentioned in the investigation file.
Logical Fallacies, Stylistic Errors
▼
▲ Below is an excerpt from an accounting textbook, from the section titled “Purchasing Expenses”, which explains how a returned purchase should be reported in accounting. As an example, the author(s) describes a hypothetical event in a hypothetical company when the company has to return the purchased products after inspecting the delivery and finding quality issues:
Original (Excerpt 1):
Satın alınan mallar, işletme tarafından teslim alınırken teslim alan birim tarafından kontrol edilir. Yapılan bu kontrollerin sonucunda satın alınan malların istenen özelliklerin bir kısmını ya da hiçbirini taşımıyor olması ya da farklı bir mal gönderilmiş olması gibi durumlarla karşılaşılması durumunda işletmeler, söz konusu malların bir kısmını ya da tamamını iade edebilirler.
(lit. Purchased goods are inspected by the receiving unit when they are received by the company. If, as a result of these inspections, the purchased goods do not have some or all of the required features or if a different product has been sent, companies may return some or all of the goods in question.)
Genel Muhasebe I, Anadolu University, ed. Kerim Banar and Vedat Ekergil
There are quite a few stylistic usage issues in the excerpt, including stylistic repetitiveness, pleonastic and tautological redundancies, stylistic agreement issues, “padding”, clichéd expressions, and other style-related problems, which I explain in my other posts on the usage errors in Turkish.
The excerpt, however, is also “guilty” of logical fallacies, of which there are at least two:
Logical fallacies:
The current version of the second sentence implies that the quality issues detected are the result of the inspection(s), which is, of course, illogical.
Again, according to the current form of the second sentence, there are three conditions for the purchased good to be returned:
(i) (all of) the purchased goods do not meet some of the required specifications;
(ii) (all of) the purchased goods do not meet any of the required specifications;
(iii) (all of) the purchased goods are not the goods that were ordered.
Now, not meeting some requirements is a definition of a defect. So, the first condition simply means that all of the purchased goods are defective. The second condition means that none of the purchased goods meet the requirements, which is to say that none of the purchased goods are the goods ordered, which is also stated by the third condition. Therefore, one of them is redundant.
In the end, there are two (not three) reasons for the return:
a) all of the purchased goods are defective; OR
b) all of the purchased goods are not the goods ordered.
Further, the sentence describes the actions that the company may take depending on the established reason.
The company may act in two ways:
a) the company may return some of the purchased goods; OR
b) the company may return all of the purchased goods.
Now, if we compare the reasons with the resulting actions, only the second options (b) match, whereas the options (a) are not consistent: if all the purchased goods are defective, why return only some of them? If all the goods are either defective or wrong, they must all be returned. If, however, the company is OK with the defect, then the company will keep all the defective goods, meaning all the purchased goods. So, which one should it be: return all the defective goods or keep all of them?
From reading the next excerpt, it becomes clear that the company may find that either some of the purchased goods are defective (and may return them) or all of the purchased goods are defective (and all should be returned) (the excerpt below also has some usage issues: the use of a redundant descriptor işletme in Gürgen Ticaret işletmesi, the excessively stylized expressions satın almış olduğu and stoklarında azaltıcı bir etki yaratır, which I explain in my other posts on the usage in Turkish):
Original (Excerpt 2):
Gürgen Ticaret işletmesinin satın almış olduğu malların bir bölümünü istediği özellikleri taşımaması sebebiyle B işletmesine iade etmesi, işletmenin stoklarında azaltıcı bir etki yaratır.
Genel Muhasebe I, Anadolu University, ed. Kerim Banar and Vedat Ekergil
In other words, it’s not about some or all of the specifications but about some or all of the goods. So, it appears that the second sentence in its current version has a wrong word order: instead of satın alınan malların istenen özelliklerin bir kısmı ya da hiçbiri, it should be satın alınan malların bir kısmının ya da hiçbirinin istenen özellikleri.
The revised and correct excerpt, in my humble opinion, should be as follows:
Revised:
Satın alınan mallar, işletme tarafından teslim alındığında kontrol edilir. Bu kontrolün sonucunda, satın alınan malların bir kısmının ya da tamamının istenen özellikleri taşımadığı tespit edilirse, malların o kısmı ya da tamamı iade edilebilir.
Upon receipt, purchased goods are inspected by the company. If this inspection establishes that some or all of the purchased goods do not meet the required specifications, that portion or all of the goods may be returned.
Syntactic Errors, Anthropomorphic Fallacy, Vague Language, Stylistic Repetitiveness, Stylistic Usage Errors
▼
▲ Here is another interesting example, which I also mention in my post on stylistic repetitiveness:
Gereksiz yere tüketilen nakit kadar, yeteri kadar kullanılmayan nakit de işletmelerin faaliyetlerinin başarısızlığı üzerinde aynı etkiye neden olmaktadır.
(lit., Cash that is not used sufficiently also has the same effect on the failure of business operations as cash consumed unnecessarily.)
Genel Muhasebe I (Anadolu University), ed. Kerim Banar and Vedat Ekergil
As I explain in that post, the sentence has many issues, with the immediate problem being the stylistic repetitiveness of kadar and the confusion it causes. After the first revision, the sentence looks like this:
Revised (provisional):
Gereksizce tüketilen nakit kadar, yeterince kullanılmayan nakit de işletmelerin faaliyetlerinin başarısızlığı üzerinde aynı etkiye neden olmaktadır.
(lit., Just as unnecessarily consumed cash, insufficiently used cash also has the same effect on the failure of businesses’ operations.)
We should immediately get rid of the glaring redundancies: in the context of the sentence, the following expressions can be easily trimmed:
Gereksizce tüketilen nakit kadar, yeterince kullanılmayan nakit de işletmelerin başarısızlığı aynı şekilde etkiler.
(lit., Just as unnecessarily consumed cash, insufficiently used cash also affects the failure of businesses in the same way.)
Although the revised sentence is grammatical, it makes little sense semantically. Let me explain in detail.
The sentence compares two items:
gereksizce tüketilen nakit vs. yeterince kullanılmayan nakit.
Note that these phrases are parallel and contrasted, with the contrast meant to underline the paradox that underspending cash is as bad for businesses as overspending it. The comparison, therefore, is not of unequal items (we are not stating that, in terms of some quality, one item is more, or less, than the other one). Instead, the comparison is meant to highlight the similarity between the items. The sentence thus describes a comparison of equal items, using a structure that linguists identify as comparison of equality.
In lexicalized comparisons of equality, one item (X) is characterized in terms of its equal comparison to another item (Y), stating that both items equally possess a certain quality. In other words, Y is an item whose possession of the quality is more evident compared to X. If Y is more evident and X is more surprising, or paradoxical, in terms of the effect on businesses, then:
X = yeterince kullanılmayan nakit
Y = gereksizce tüketilen nakit
The comparison of equality can be structured as either of the following, depending on the pragmatic emphasis:
X, Y kadar [is/does] [quality].
OR
Y kadar, X de [is/does] [quality].
The author(s) chose the second structure to create an emphatic suspensive effect by delaying the more surprising item X. The clitic da/de is added to emphasize the item X.
A comparison of equality (kadar) can also be expressed as a similarity structure (gibi):
X = Topic | Y = Topic |
X, Y kadar [is/does] [quality]. X [is/does] as [quality] as Y. | Y kadar, X de [is/does] [quality]. Just as Y, X also [is/does] [quality]. |
X, Y gibi [is/does] [quality]. X [is/does] [quality](,) like Y. | Y gibi, X de [is/does] [quality]. Like Y, X too [is/does] [quality]. |
Therefore, these sentences mean the same things:
Gereksizce tüketilen nakit kadar, yeterince kullanılmayan nakit de işletmelerin başarısızlığı aynı şekilde etkiler.
(lit., Just as unnecessarily consumed cash, insufficiently used cash also affects the failure of businesses in some way.)
Gereksizce tüketilen nakit gibi, yeterince kullanılmayan nakit de işletmelerin başarısızlığı aynı şekilde etkiler.
(lit., Like unnecessarily consumed cash, insufficiently used cash, too, affects the failure of businesses in some way.)
Something is still wrong here. It appears that the author(s) have muddled the comparison of equality/similarity formulas with another expression of comparison of equality/similarity—the one that uses the adjective aynı (same), which is normally structured as a coordination sentence:
Gereksizce tüketilen nakit ve yeterince kullanılmayan nakit, işletmelerin başarısızlığı aynı şekilde etkiler.
(lit., Insufficiently used cash and unnecessarily consumed cash affect the failure of businesses in the same way.)
However, the coordination structure appears to be rhetorically neutral, lacking the emotive contrast intended in the original sentence. In any way, the use of aynı is redundant, since a comparison of equality/similarity already logically conveys the equal/similar status of items.
Let’s revise the sentence again:
Gereksizce tüketilen nakit kadar, yeterince kullanılmayan nakit de işletmelerin başarısızlığı bir şekilde etkiler.
(lit., Just as unnecessarily consumed cash, insufficiently used cash also affects the failure of businesses in some way.)
Again, a grammatically correct sentence but an utter nonsense! Why?
Empty stylization:
To begin with, the phrase affecting the failure of businesses in some way makes absolutely no sense. The failure is caused or contributed to, not affected. Moreover, the use of “in some way” is too vague to be effective, or even meaningful. It should be just removed:
Gereksizce tüketilen nakit kadar, yeterince kullanılmayan nakit de işletmelerin başarısızlığına sebep olabilir.
(lit., Just as unnecessarily consumed cash, insufficiently used cash may also contribute to the failure of businesses.)
Pleonasm:
Secondly, the combination of “money” and “consumption” does not work in English, but it’s possible in Turkish as an empathic or idiomatic expression, e.g., bütün parasını tüketmiş (he used up all his money, he bled him dry, he burned through his money); cebindekini tüketmiş (he burned a hole in his pocket). In other words, the expression tüketilen nakit is already charged with a negative judgment. This makes the adding of the adverb gereksizce rather pleonastic (redundant), since the verbal already conveys the sense of waste. To maintain the contrasted parallelism of the phrases, it is better to replace the verbal tüketilen with more neutral verbal, e.g., harcanan:
Gereksizce harcanan nakit kadar, yeterince kullanılmayan nakit de işletmelerin başarısızlığına sebep olabilir.
(lit., Just as unnecessarily spent cash, insufficiently used cash may also contribute to the failure of businesses.)
Anthropomorphizing:
Thirdly, the sentence is a bad case of anthropomorphizing. Here, cash acts like an animated entity, able to influence businesses. It’s better to formulate it as an action, as a gerund—by revising gereksizce harcanan nakit as nakiti gereksizce harcamak and yeterince kullanılmayan nakit as nakiti yeterince kullanmamak, we shift the structural accent from the noun to the verbal, while maintaining the parallelism of the phrases. For a better juxtaposition of the phrases, I’d revise the second verbal as harcamamak as well, to make the contrast more evident.
Here are two potential versions:
Revision (optional) 1:
Gereksizce nakit harcamak kadar, yeterince nakit harcamamak da işletmelerin başarısızlığına sebep olabilir.
Just as spending too much cash, not spending enough cash may also contribute to business failure.
(Just as overusing cash, underusing cash may also contribute to business failure.)
Revision (optional) 2:
Aşırı nakit harcamak kadar, yeterli nakit harcamamak da işletmelerin başarısızlığına yol açabilir.
Aşırı nakit harcamak gibi, yeterli nakit harcamamak da işletmelerin başarısızlığına yol açabilir.
Spending too much cash can contribute to business failure, as can not spending enough cash.
Vague Language, Faulty Word Order, Stylistic Usage Errors, Excessive Modification
▼
▲ Several logical issues can be found in the sentence below:
Kaynak, sahip olduğu bir duyguyu, bir düşünceyi alıcı ile paylaşmak isterse onu, önce mimik, jest, hareket, ses, söz vb. gibi sembollerden en az biriyle oluşturulmuş bir mesaj hâline getirmek sonra da bu mesajı, bir araçla alıcının duyu organlarından en az birine iletmek zorundadır.
(lit., If the source wants to share an emotion or a thought with the receiver, he must first transform it into a message created with at least one of the symbols such as mimic, gesture, movement, sound, word, etc., and then transmit this message to at least one of the receiver's sensory organs through a means.)
Hayati Develi, Türk Dili I
Vague expression:
The notion of belonging, expressed with the verb “sahip olmak” (to own), has a static sense and may not be as appropriate with ephemeral, abstract concepts, such as a feeling or an emotion (duygu, his). Furthermore, we don’t really share our emotions; we convey them. We may share our thoughts, however.
In the enumeration of the methods for conveying a message, the listing together of such items as gesture and movement makes them equal. However, the term “movement” is broader than “gesture,” the latter applying to hand movements only.
Wrong order of words:
The author mis-ordered the object pronoun (onu) and the adverb (önce) in the compound-complex sentence where the two compound clauses express two successive actions, each having its own object and adverb: önce + onu and sonra + bu mesajı.
Tautological duplication:
The combined use of vb. (ve benzeri) and gibi is excessive, since both are used to give examples.
Excessive modification (hypercharacterization):
According to the sentence, the source must transform a thought into a message by creating it with mimic, gestures, etc. The combination of two verb forms, oluşturulmuş and hâline getirmek, suggests two actions, first oluşturmak and then hâline getirmek, even though both are synonymic.
Revised:
Kaynak, alıcıya bir duyguyu veya düşünceyi iletmek istiyorsa, önce bunu mimik, jest, beden hareketi, ses veya sözcüklerle bir mesaj hâline getirmeli, sonra da bu mesajı özel bir araçla alıcının duyu organlarından en az birine iletmelidir.
If the source wants to convey an emotion or share a thought with the receiver, she must first transform it into a message with facial expressions, gestures, body movements, sounds, or words, and then transmit this message to at least one of the receiver's sensory organs using a specific tool.
Anthropomorphic & Metonymic Fallacies
One of the common linguistic economy strategies is to use of a mental shortcut, based on an analogy, simile, metaphor, or another figure of speech, to describe a new concept, emotion, or phenomenon. One such figure of speech is anthropomorphism, applied to inanimate objects to attribute to them human properties. Anthropomorphism is also applied to metonymic entities named after associated objects or events.
We cannot have a separate word for everything we encounter in life, so we recycle the existing vocabulary. Most of the time, we use a handful of words, which we recombine in many ways, and hope that others, who share the context, can figure it out. One of such recycling strategies is to transform abstract or inanimate subjects to active subjects or subjects-agents, which is sometimes achieved by applying a method of personification, or anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism refers to attributing human agency (and possibly intention) to abstract concepts, physical phenomena, or inanimate objects, thus licensing their subject and agent status and allowing the use of active verbs.
Personification is common in literary and poetic works, as in the image of the wind slamming a door (see below):
Bir keresinde yukarıda bir gürültü olmuştu galiba; rüzgâr bir kapıyı çarptı sanmıştım.
I think there was a noise upstairs once. I thought the wind had slammed a door.
Oğuz Atay, “Unutulan”
Besides, any uses of inanimate objects or physical phenomena with active verbs could arguably be viewed as instances of anthropomorphism, having become increasingly more acceptable in descriptions of technological devices and software and even in academic writing, like in the examples below:
Dil seçeneği önemli bir yardımcıdır çünkü orijinal metnin özünü alır ve çevirinin kristal netliğinde olmasına rağmen ona sadık kalmasını sağlar.
The language option is a valuable aid: it captures the essence of the original text and ensures that the translation remains faithful to it yet crystal clear.
KPMG’nin 100 ABD merkezli C-seviyesi ve iş liderinin görüşlerini aldığı Yapay Zekâ ve Dijital İnovasyon araştırmasına göre, iş dünyası liderleri üretken yapay zekâ (GenAI) stratejilerini desteklemek için stratejik yatırımlar yapmaya devam ediyor.
According to KPMG’s Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation study, which surveyed 100 U.S.-based C-level and business leaders representing organizations, business leaders continue to make strategic investments to support their GenAI strategies.
Anthropomorphism may be applied to metonymic as well as inanimate entities. Metonymy is a form of attribution by which a thing or a concept is not called by its own name but by the name of something intimately associated with that thing or concept. When we use metonymic expressions, we do not mean to make an analogy, however; we simply use it as a descriptive mental shortcut. In this sense, it can be understood as another economy strategy. Metonymic names are often used as informal equivalents of the formally established names.
Here is how the process of metonymy works: We may first metonymically transform (merge) a singular noun into a collective noun:
Yesterday, the elected and appointed officials of the United States of America held a press conference.
⇓
Yesterday, the U.S. government held a press conference.
We may further metonymically rename the new entity after an associated object or event, as a mental shortcut:
⇓
Yesterday, the White House held a press conference.
While the new term the White House is semantically an inanimate entity, it is anthropomorphically used with the active verb held. As you can see, the sentences significantly shorten, highlighting the economizing effect of both anthropomorphism and metonymy.
In the Turkish examples below, the metonymically-transformed collective noun okul stands for all school students, the collective noun tribünler imply all those sitting or standing on the stands, and the collective entity Anadolu can be used to refer to the people living in the region of Anatolia:
Bütün okul hayret etti. The whole school was amazed. | Tribünler ayağa kalktı. The stands rose. | Anadolu, misafiri sever. Anatolia loves guests. |
In the sentence below, there are three instances of metonymy: the capital cities Washington, Moskova, and Ankara, standing for the national governments:
Bunların her biri sınırları Washington, Moskova ve Ankara arasında tanımlanıp anlaşmaya varılacak bir bölgeden mes'ul olacak.
Each of them will be responsible for a zone whose borders will be defined and agreed upon by Washington, Moscow, and Ankara.
These are well-accepted uses of the strategies. However, some anthropomorphic and metonymic expressions are less acceptable, as illustrated by the examples below.
‘The Naming’ ⮂ ‘The Named’
Turkish writers may use the word isim or ad to stand for, or represent, the notion of personhood, as if connected metonymically. The act of naming something thus semantically becomes equated to the object of naming or the subject named.
This is one of the most common usage issues in literary Turkish. There are numerous examples of such uses in both fiction and nonfiction. According to these examples, ‘names’ can defend ideas, comprise a council, be influential, prominent, or relevant, challenge the established order, come to the fore, produce, or be pioneers in academic studies. Such use of the word isim or ad is close in meaning to the English figure. Turkish idiomatic, and metonymic, expression ‘adı karışmak’ (to involve) may be the source of such usage.
bir kişinin ‘ismi’/‘adı’ ≠ ‘bir kişi’ (person, individual, figure)
“Yeni dil” düşüncesini Ömer Seyfettin’le birlikte ömür boyu savunan önemli bir isim de Ziya Gökalp’tır.
(lit., Along with Ömer Seyfettin, another important name that defended the idea of “new language” his entire life was Ziya Gökalp.)
Erdoğan Kul, Türk Dili
Harf Devrimi’nin gerçekleşmesi için Falih Rıfkı (Atay), Ruşen Eşref (Ünaydın), Yakup Kadri (Karaosmanoğlu) ve Fazıl Ahmet (Aykaç) gibi isimlerden oluşan “Dil Encümeni” 26 Haziran 1928’de toplanmış ve alfabe ve dil bilgisi kolu olarak ikiye ayrılmışlardır.
(lit., For the Alphabet Revolution to take place, the Language Council, consisting of such names as Falih Rıfkı (Atay), Ruşen Eşref (Ünaydın), Yakup Kadri (Karaosmanoğlu) and Fazıl Ahmet (Aykaç), convened on June 26, 1928, and was divided into two branches: alphabet and grammar.)
Hayati Develi, Türk Dili I
Jane Austen, Bronte Kardeşler, George Eliot gibi isimler hiçbir zaman yerleşik düzenle karşı karşıya gelmemişlerdir.
(lit., Names such as Jane Austen, the Bronte sisters, and George Eliot never challenged the established order.)
Yazılı Anlatım Türleri ve Uygulamaları I: Düşünce Yazıları (Anadolu Üniversitesi)
“Esir Şehir Üçlemesi”, edebiyatımızın güçlü ve klasikleşmiş ismi Kemal Tahir'in baş yapıtlarındandır.
(lit., “The Captive City Trilogy” is one of the masterpieces of Kemal Tahir, an influential and classic name in our literature.)
Halit Refiğ (from a book jacket blurb)
Cumhuriyet dönemi Türk edebiyatında eleştirmenliğiyle ön plana çıkan ve öznel eleştiri anlayışıyla çeken ilk isim olan Nurullah Ataç, eleştiri üzerine görüşleriyle de eleştirinin bağımsız bir tür olması konusunda önemli katkılar sağlamıştır. Nurullah Ataç’tan sonra eleştiri üzerine kuramsal anlamda yazı yazan bir ikinci isim Mehmet Kaplan olmuştur.
(lit., Nurullah Ataç was the first name to come to the fore with his critique of the Turkish literature of the Republican period and to draw attention with his subjective take on criticism. With his writings on criticism, he became one of the founders of the new literary genre. Following Nurullah Ataç, Mehmet Kaplan became the second name to produce theories on criticism.)
Yazılı Anlatım Türleri ve Uygulamaları I: Düşünce Yazıları (Anadolu Üniversitesi)
Fakat en az onun kadar önemli olan, bu kişilerin cemaatin tepesinde yer alan bazı isimler tarafından himaye görmüş olması. Peki kim bu isimler?
(lit., But what is at least as important is that these people were protected by some names at the top of the Cemaat (congregation). So, who are these names?)
Revised:
Fakat en az onun kadar önemli olan, bu insanların, cemaatin tepesinde yer alan bazı kişiler tarafından himaye görmüş olması. Peki kim bunlar?
But what is at least as important is that these individuals were protected by some people at the top of the Cemaat. So, who are they?
Einar Haugen, Werner Betz ve Uriel Weinreich, ödünçleme çalışmalarının öncü isimleri olarak kabul edilebilir.
(lit., Einar Haugen, Werner Betz, and Uriel Weinreich can be considered the pioneer names of the studies on borrowing words.)
Hayati Develi, Türk Dili I
Revised:
Einar Haugen, Werner Betz ve Uriel Weinreich, ödünçleme çalışmalarının öncüleri olarak kabul edilebilir.
Einar Haugen, Werner Betz, and Uriel Weinreich can be considered pioneers of the studies on borrowing words.
Bütün bu olağanüstü güvenlik önlemleri terör örgütü El-Kaide’nin önemli isimlerinden Louai Sakka için.
(lit., All these extraordinary security measures are for Louai Sakka, one of the important names of the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda.)
Sakka’ya “VİP” Güvenlik
Revised 1:
Bütün bu olağanüstü güvenlik önlemleri El-Kaide’nin önemli üyelerinden Louai Sakka için.
All these extraordinary security precautions are for Louai Sakka, an important member of Al-Qaeda.
Revised 2:
Bütün bu olağanüstü güvenlik önlemleri El-Kaide’nin önemli ajanlarından Louai Sakka için.
All these extraordinary security precautions are for Louai Sakka, an important Al-Qaeda operative.
bir dalın ‘adı, ismi’ ≠ ‘bir dal’ (branch)
The false equivalence between the act of naming and the named object/subject extends to inanimate entities. For example, in the sentence below, the author equates the names of branches (eski Türk edebiyatı, halk edebiyatı, and yeni Türk edebiyatı) of a broader discipline (Türk edebiyatı) with the branches themselves. (Note that the branch names should also be capitalized.)
Bilindiği gibi Türk edebiyatı; eski Türk edebiyatı, halk edebiyatı, yeni Türk edebiyatı adları altında birtakım dallara ayrılarak incelenmekte ve öğretilmektedir.
(lit., As is known, Turkish literature is studied and taught under the names of old Turkish literature, folk literature, and new Turkish literature, being divided into several branches.)
Yeni Türk Edebiyatına Giriş, ed. Zeliha Güneş
The sentence seems incongruent and vague in its structuring. A link between the first statement of the listed branches (eski Türk edebiyatı, halk edebiyatı, and yeni Türk edebiyatı) and the second statement about the branching of the discipline (birtakım dallara ayrılarak) needs to be expressed more clearly, which we can improve by formatting the second statement as a parenthetical comment (aside):
Bilindiği gibi Türk edebiyatı; Eski Türk Edebiyatı, Halk Edebiyatı, Yeni Türk Edebiyatı dalları altında, yani birtakım dallara ayrılarak, incelenmekte ve öğretilmektedir.
As it is known, Turkish literature is studied and taught under such branches as Old Turkish Literature, Folk Literature, and New Turkish Literature, that is, having been divided into several branches.
After we replace ad (name) with dal (branch), however, the sentence appears somewhat stylistically and semantically repetitive. Besides, there is a semantic duplication here: after the author lists the branches into which the discipline of Turkish literature is divided into, she states that the discipline is divided into a number of branches (birtakım dallara ayrılarak). The second statement is kind of obvious and logically inferable from the preceding listing.
One option is to rephrase the sentence by removing the repeated dal (branch):
Revised 1:
Bilindiği gibi Türk edebiyatı; Eski Türk Edebiyatı, Halk Edebiyatı, Yeni Türk Edebiyatı olmak üzere birçok dallara ayrılarak incelenmekte ve öğretilmektedir.
As is known, Turkish literature is studied and taught as divided into several branches, including Old Turkish Literature, Folk Literature, and New Turkish Literature.
Another option is to trim the sentence even further by removing the semantically duplicated part:
Revised 2:
Bilindiği gibi Türk edebiyatı; Eski Türk Edebiyatı, Halk Edebiyatı, Yeni Türk Edebiyatı dalları altında incelenmekte ve öğretilmektedir.
As it is known, Turkish literature is studied and taught under the branches of Old Turkish Literature, folk Literature, and New Turkish Literature.
‘isim’ = ‘isim’ (name, title)
👍 Here, however, the use of isimler in this headline is correct:
“Aşırı sağcı Fransız yazar: Muhammed gibi isimler yasaklanmalı”
“Far-Right French Writer Says, ‘Names Like Muhammed Should Be Banned’”
a newspaper headline
The Idiomatic Use of ‘Adı Karışmak’
The Turkish idiomatic expression ‘(bir şeye) adı karışmak’ (to be mixed up in something, to be involved in something) (lit. to be a (person whose) name mixed up in something, to be a (person whose) name involved in something) may explain why speakers find it acceptable to have people's names (ad or isim) function as agents in sentences:
Mikrofilmdeki kayıtlara göre saldırı planına adı karışan bir kişi daha varmış.
According to the records on the microfilm, there was another person involved in planning the attack.
Federal Dışişleri Ofisinin açıklamasına göre €1.922.047 ile €2.155.246, adı suçlamalara karışan kişilerin zimmetine geçirilmişti.
According to the Federal Foreign Office, €1,922,047 to €2,155,246 was embezzled by the people implicated in the offence.
‘The Titling’ ⮂ ‘The Titled’
Another fascinating and somewhat analogous metonymy involves the use of başlık (heading, title) as standing for the “body of the content” being headed:
‘başlığıyla yazı’ vs. ‘yazı’
The following usage may be considered an anthropomorphic fallacy, as it literally means “the title that recommends”. In English, however, it may be OK to say “the title suggests”:
NATO’ya, Türkiye Cumhurbaşkanı ile artık daha açık sözlü, dürüst konuşmalarının gerektiğini tavsiye eden başlığıyla, Çağaptay’ın son yazısı, akla önce sınır ötesi tehditlere karşı müttefiklerinin, Türkiye’ye karşı daha samimi davranmaları gerektiği fikrini getiriyor.
(lit., Çağaptay, in his latest article, whose title recommends that NATO talk to Turkey’s president more frankly and honestly from now on, points out that its allies act more sincerely toward Turkey in the face of manic threats.)
Hakkı Öcal, “Türkiye: ‘Uyuşturucu madde müptelası’”, Milliyet
‘başlıktaki trend’ ≠ ‘trend’
Adeta bir “kristal küreye” bakarak tahminlerde bulunma çabasına girmeksizin bu başlıklardaki trendleri analiz etmek suretiyle olası gelişmelere ilişkin geleceğe dönük düşünce projeksiyonunda bulunacağız.
(lit., We will analyze the trends in these topics and make projections regarding possible future developments, without trying to make predictions by looking into a “crystal ball”.)
Can Kasapoğlu, “2022 Yılı Türkiye Milli Güvenlik Ajandası Projeksiyonları ve Tahminler”, https://edam.org.tr/2022ye-bakis/
Revised:
Bir “kristal küreye” bakmak yerine, bu trendleri analiz ederek gelecekteki gelişmeleri tahmin edeceğiz.
Rather than stare into a “crystal ball”, we are going to analyze these trends to predict the future developments.
‘konu başlığı’ ≠ ‘konu’
Bu raporumuzda biz geçtiğimiz yıla ilişkin bir değerlendirme yapma yoluna gitmeden 2022 yılı için Türkiye’yi de ilgilendiren ve uluslararası ilişkiler açısından önem taşıyan konu başlıklarına ilişkin görüşlerimizi paylaşacağız.
(lit., In this report, we will share our views on the topic headings that also concern Turkey and are important in terms of international relations for 2022, without making an assessment of the past year.)
Can Kasapoğlu, “2022 Yılı Türkiye Milli Güvenlik Ajandası Projeksiyonları ve Tahminler”, https://edam.org.tr/2022ye-bakis/
Revised:
Bu raporumuzda, bir önceki yılın sonuçlarını dikkate almadan, 2022 yılı Türkiye'yi de ilgilendiren ve uluslararası ilişkiler için önemli olan konular ile ilgili görüşlerimizi paylaşacağız.
In our report, we will share our views on the topics that also concern Turkey and are important for international relations in 2022, without taking into account the results for the previous year.
‘The Written’ ⮂ ‘The Spoken’/‘The Thought-Out’
‘cümle’ ≠ ‘söylenti’ (utterance, saying, pronouncement)
Servet Bey kulaklarına inanamıyordu; bir karısının, bir Madam Kronski’nin yüzüne baktı; birkaç defa üst üste şu cümleyi tekrar etti: “Sevişiyorlar; evlenmek istemiyorlar!.. Sevişiyorlar; evlenmek istemiyorlar!..”
(lit., Servet Bey could not believe his ears. He looked at his wife, then at Madame Kronski. He kept repeating this sentence, “They love each other. They don’t want to get married! They love each other. They don’t want to get married!”)
Servet Bey could not believe his ears. He looked at his wife, then at Madame Kronski. He kept repeating, “They love each other. They don’t want to get married! They love each other. They don’t want to get married!”
Yakup Kadrı Karaosmanoğlu, Kiralık Kona
Bu son cümleyi sesini kısarak söylemişti.
(lit., He uttered this sentence in a low voice.)
He uttered this in a low voice.
Orhan Pamuk, Cevdet Bey ve Oğulları
İşte bu son cümle tedavimde yeni bir merhalenin başlangıcı oldu.
(lit., This last sentence was the beginning of a new phase in my treatment.)
And with this last pronouncement, he began a new stage in my treatment.
Ahmed Hamdi Tanpınar, Saatleri Ayarlama Enstitüsü
Burada yalnız enstitümüzün, İstanbul halkını o kadar şaşırtan, düşündüren ve aynı zamanda güldüren sloganlarının Nuri Efendi’nin bu naklettiğim cümlelerinden doğduğunu derhal ilave edeyim.
(lit., Let me just add here that our institute’s slogans, which greatly surprised, amused, and even challenged the minds of the people of Istanbul, were born of these sentences of Nuri Efendi that I have quoted.)
But I will note here only that our institute’s slogans, which surprised, amused, and even challenged the minds of the people of Istanbul, were born of these sayings first uttered by Nuri Efendi.
Ahmed Hamdi Tanpınar, Saatleri Ayarlama Enstitüsü
Sonra çatal bıçak sesleri, küçük gülüşler, cümleler, şangırtı gene başladı.
(lit., Then the sounds of cutlery, small laughter, sentences, and the clanking started again.)
Then the sounds of cutlery, small laughter, exchanges, and the clanking started again.
Orhan Pamuk, Cevdet Bey ve Oğulları
Yaşar “Yarın akşam dostlarla size geleceğiz!” diye haber gönderdiği veya kısa uğrayışlarında bizzat söylediği zaman Adile, bu haberin veya vaadin altında “Siz Nuran’ı çağırırsınız, hatta icap ederse ısrar edersiniz!” cümlesini kendiliğinden buluyor[du].
(lit., Whenever Yaşar sent word, “Tomorrow evening we’re coming over with a group of friends!” or whenever he said so in person during an impromptu visit, Adile, in response would automatically understand this sentence, “You’ll be sure to invite Nuran, won’t you? Do insist that she come!”)
Whenever Yaşar sent word, “Tomorrow evening we’re coming over with a group of friends!” or whenever he said so in person during an impromptu visit, Adile, in response would automatically suggest, “You’ll be sure to invite Nuran, won’t you? Do insist that she come!”
Ahmed Hamdi Tanpınar, Huzur
‘cümle’ ≠ ‘düşünme’ (idea, notion)
İstediğin harp, bu cümlenin sonudur.
(lit., The war you want is the end of this sentence.)
Meanwhile, the war you crave is the obliteration of this notion.
Ahmed Hamdi Tanpınar, Huzur
“Polise anlatalım,” dedi Ka bir zamanlar bunun solcuların nefret ettiği bir cümle olduğunu hatırlayarak.
(lit., “Let’s tell the police,” said Ka, remembering that this was once a sentence that leftists hated.)
“Let’s tell the police,” said Ka, even as he remembered that once upon a time, when he was a left-wing student, such an idea would have been unthinkable.
Orhan Pamuk, Kar
‘cümle’ ≠ ‘bilgi’ (information)
Üçümüz birlikte ketebe sayfasının her köşesini dolduran imzaları, ithafları, tarih cümlelerini, birbirlerinin üzerine ve aralarına tıkış tıkış sıkıştırılmış ve gerçek hayatta birbirini boğazlamış sultanların adlarını benim merceğimle büyütüp okuduk.
(lit., Using my magnifying lens, the three of us read the signatures, dedications, historical sentences and names of sultans—who’d strangled one another—filling every corner of the colophon page, pinched together, between and on top of each other.)
Using my magnifying lens, the three of us read the signatures, dedications, historical information and names of sultans—who’d strangled one another—filling every corner of the colophon page, pinched together, between and on top of each other.
Orhan Pamuk, Benim Adım Kırmızı
Comments