Science & Discovery
Advanced Passive ve Impersonal Passive
Gramer: Relative Clauses — Defining vs Non-Defining (who/which/whose/where/whereby)
Hukuk ve toplum temasıyla tanımlayıcı ve ek bilgi veren relative clause farkını, virgül kuralını ve whose / whereby kullanımını öğreniyorsun.
10 kelime ve kalıp — defining relative clause · non-defining relative clause · whose + noun …
Relative Clauses — Defining vs Non-Defining (who/which/whose/where/whereby)
“The Right to Be Forgotten” metni ve 4 anlama sorusu
Relative clause alıştırması · Hukuk ve toplum
| # | Kelime / Kalıp | Türkçe açıklama |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | defining relative clause | Tanımlayıcı — virgülsüz, 'that' kullanılabilir |
| 2 | non-defining relative clause | Ek bilgi veren — virgüllü, 'that' kullanılamaz |
| 3 | whose + noun | ...in/nin — iyelik gösterir (kişi veya nesne) |
| 4 | whereby | ...yoluyla, ...vasıtasıyla (resmi) |
| 5 | jurisdiction | Yargı yetkisi — hangi mahkeme sorumlu? |
| 6 | legislation / statute | Mevzuat / yazılı kanun |
| 7 | liable (for) | Sorumlu (hukuki) — yasal yükümlülük |
| 8 | sue someone (for) | Birini dava etmek |
| 9 | precedent | Emsal — önceden verilen kararla yol gösterir |
| 10 | civil rights vs human rights | Medeni haklar (vatandaş) vs İnsan hakları (evrensel) |
B2 düzeyinde relative clauses iki türe ayrılır: defining (tanımlayan — virgülsüz) ve non-defining (ek bilgi veren — virgüllü). Bu ayrım hem anlam hem de noktalama açısından kritiktir.
| Tür | Kural | Örnek | Anlam |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defining | Virgül yok · that kullanılabilir | The man who called was rude. | Hangi adam? — arayan adam |
| Non-defining | Virgüllü · that KULLANILMAZ | My father, who is 60, loves jazz. | Ek bilgi — babam zaten bilinen biri |
| Zamir | Kullanım | Defining | Non-defining |
|---|---|---|---|
| who | kişiler | ✅ | ✅ |
| which | nesneler/hayvanlar | ✅ | ✅ |
| that | kişi ve nesneler | ✅ | ❌ |
| whose | aitlik | ✅ | ✅ |
| where | yerler | ✅ | ✅ |
| when | zamanlar | ✅ | ✅ |
In May 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union made a landmark ruling which changed internet privacy law forever. Mario Costeja González, whose name appeared in old newspaper articles that linked him to debt problems, had requested that Google remove the search links.
The court ruled that individuals who believe their outdated data harms their privacy have the right to request its removal. Companies that fail to comply may face significant fines.
This ruling, which only applies within the EU, has been deeply controversial. Journalists, whose work depends on public access to historical information, argued it threatened press freedom. Historians expressed concern about a world where inconvenient facts could simply be deleted.
A system whereby anyone could request the erasure of legally published information was described by critics as "digital amnesia." The company whose search results triggered the original case — Google — lost.
The debate continues: the right to privacy versus the right to information — two fundamental values that cannot always coexist. The year when this ruling was made marked a turning point in how the internet, which had long operated as an unlimited archive, was forced to face questions of accountability.
1Who was Mario Costeja González and what did he request?
2What right did the court rule that individuals have?
3Why were journalists and historians concerned?
4Find one defining and one non-defining relative clause in the text. Explain the difference.
Advanced Passive ve Impersonal Passive
Defining vs Non-defining Relative Clauses
Cleft Sentences ve Fronting
Gerund vs Infinitive (anlam değişimi)
Modal Perfects (should / could / might / must have)
Discourse Markers ve Bağlaçlar
Subjunctive ve Formal Conditional Inversion
Nominalisation ve Akademik Üslup
Hedging Language (akademik temkin)
Mixed Conditionals ve Formal Inversion