Turkish has a different verb tense for something you personally witnessed vs heard second hand or inferred, and I really appreciate that
this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2026
385 points (99.0% liked)
Greentext
8959 readers
453 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
What the fuck, the English stole everything that wasn't bolted down and they didn't take THAT with them? PRIORITIES, guys. Skip the French crap and integrate THIS
We can still do it. Time to ask what the turkish word is so we can integrate them into our Frankenstein language
I looked it up earlier and don't remember the exact characters so forgive the romanization but it's basically changing "di" to "mis" at the end of verbs.
"It rained" vs "apparently it rained" when you did not actually see it raining but the sidewalk is wet.
"Ali is sick" vs "Ali is supposedly sick" when you did not confirm it (or perhaps doubt Ali's claim??)
Thanks for making it clearer. Just to add actual turkish so people can see properly :
Yağmur yağdı > It rained
Yağmur yağmış > It's been said that it rained
Ali hasta > Ali is sick
Ali hastamış > It's been said that Ali is sick
Yağmur > rain
yağ > to spread/to rain
dı > past indicator
mış > second person reporting, past
hasta > sick
wait, is that yag also the root for yogurt? sorry for the lack of diacritics
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/yo%C4%9Furt
Inherited from Ottoman Turkish یوغورت (yoğurt), from Proto-Turkic *yogrut (“curdled, coagulated milk”),[1] from *yogur- (“to knead, to fluff up, to condense”) + *-ut.[2][3] By surface analysis, yoğur- (“to knead”) + -t.
You can copy and paste them from the Wikipedia article on the Turkish alphabet, or my post if you want
Hey for no reason in particular, what is that word?
Evidential past tense. Depends the verb, but it's usually verb-miş, which kinda sounds like 'misha' or 'mush' to my US ears. It's used when you haven't personally witnessed something. Like if you go outside and see puddles of water and a cloud that just passed and a rainbow, it clearly just rained but you didn't TECHNICALLY see it rain, so you say yağmur yağmış instead of yağmur yağdı if you had actually seen it.
So when you find a group of people gossiping, you just hear 'misha' 'misha' 'misha' 'misha' because they're all talking about inferred info, and I've heard it called the gossip tense.
And it's appropriate to note that I know all this second hand. I don't know any Turkish (besides Dur = stopsign from geoguessr), this is from my language nerd friend who speaks a decent amount, so I probably need to throw a -miş in here somewhere.
They said it’s a tense, not a specific word
Ok but like what if they just relaxed and said it
Then we gotta invent some words!
Worse part is when a headline of an article like that is posted on social media and everyone just takes it at face value, especially if they agree with it.
Reminds me of every instance of a "Gen Z" is dumb article out there
SCIENTIST FOUND EVIDENCE THAT THE MULTIVERSE IS REAL
New experimental observations regarding macroscopic quantum mechanical systems are found to be consistent with the many-worlds interpretation.
Yeah, Many-Worlds is just a bunch of metaphysics tacked on top of quantum mechanics. It doesn't change any of the mathematics at all, so it predicts all the same things normal quantum mechanics predicts. Yet, for some reason, all the time, you see headlines claiming to find "evidence" for Many Worlds, and you click the article, and you find that all they did was just test a prediction of quantum mechanics is correct... which obviously is consistent with Many Worlds because it makes all the same predictions! There is no experiment that can single out Many Worlds from standard quantum mechanics because they don't make different predictions.
Even "sources" are suspicious. I've had many discussions where people link their claims and their link does not back them up or outright contradicts them. But they keep on making their claim.
I got sent so many tiktoks or other short form media where someone explains something that they read, and they sound really smart and all. Sometimes i read up the source and what they got out of it was just plain wrong or misinterpreted. Someone once said: smart people aren't on tiktok, truly smart people don't have the time, they write the stuff that people make tiktoks about.
Sounds like your friends or family are the issue.
The smartest people write a book and then make tiktok videos about the subject to advertise the book.
"It was revealed to me in a dream."
fake: no source
gay: anon reads
Found the Vorin.
When the word "tantalizing" is used, you know you're in for some absolute hogwash.
My ass is a source.
A source of shit but a source none the less
I'm somehow reminded of Philip Roth which is the example of not trusting to the extreme. Wikipedia's article on The Human Stain said the book was inspired by Anatole Broyard. Roth said that wasn't true, and he contacted Wikipedia to fix it. The editors told him he wasn't a credible source on his own novel and that they needed a published secondary source. So in 2012 he wrote an open letter in The New Yorker setting the record straight, which gave Wikipedia the source it demanded.
What's the alternative? Force journalists to reveal their sources? I'm sure that won't backfire...
Or just say more about it
How much would you need?