Modern Turkish builds relative clauses the native, head-final way: the modifier comes before the noun, with the verb turned into a participle — herkesin tanıdığı adam "the man (whom) everyone knows," literally "everyone's known man." But open a Divan poem, an Ottoman-era chronicle, a nineteenth-century novel, or a deliberately archaic modern passage, and you meet a completely different machine: a finite relative clause that comes after the noun, introduced by the free word ki — Bir adam ki herkes onu tanır "A man whom everyone knows." This is the Persian relativizer, borrowed centuries ago, and it does the exact opposite of everything native Turkish syntax prefers. For a C2 reader of older or literary Turkish it is essential to recognise; for a writer of modern prose it is a trap. This page maps it precisely — and, just as importantly, keeps it apart from the two other things spelled ki.
Three different "ki" — settle this first
The single most common error around this topic is conflating three unrelated items that happen to share the letters k-i. They have nothing in common beyond spelling, and the relativizing ki of this page is only the first.
- ki (this page): a separate word, the Persian-origin relativizer/conjunction. It introduces a finite clause that follows what it modifies: Bir ev ki bahçesi denize bakar "A house whose garden looks out on the sea." Archaic/literary as a relativizer.
- -ki (the gözdeki suffix): an attached suffix forming "the one at / in / of" from a locative or genitive base. It does not harmonise in most cases: masadaki kitap "the book on the table," gözdeki yaş "the tear in the eye," benimki "mine." After a few time words it does harmonise: dünkü "yesterday's." This is fully alive in modern Turkish and is not archaic.
- -(y)sa / ise is unrelated, but learners sometimes mishear the conditional as "ki." Keep it out of this discussion entirely.
How the ki-relative is built
The native participial relative embeds and pre-poses: it nominalises the verb (-An, -DIK + possessive) and puts the whole thing before the head noun, with no relative pronoun at all. The ki-relative does the reverse on every count:
- The head noun comes first (often introduced by bir "a").
- Then comes the free word ki.
- Then a full finite clause — a normal tensed, person-marked verb — in which the head noun is referred to again, frequently by a resumptive pronoun (onu, ona, onun).
Bir adam ki herkes onu tanır.
A man whom everyone knows (literally 'a man, that everyone knows him' — finite clause after the noun, resumptive onu).
Öyle bir ev ki bahçesinden deniz görünür.
Such a house that the sea is visible from its garden (finite görünür after ki; the garden 'belongs' to the head noun).
Set the two strategies side by side and the mirror-image relationship is unmistakable:
| Native participial (modern, neutral) | ki-relative (archaic/literary) |
|---|---|
| herkesin tanıdığı adam | (bir) adam ki herkes onu tanır |
| denizi gören ev | (öyle bir) ev ki denizi görür |
| kimsenin bilmediği bir sır | bir sır ki kimse onu bilmez |
In the left column the verb is a participle (tanıdığı, gören, bilmediği) and the clause precedes the noun. In the right column the verb is fully finite (tanır, görür, bilmez) and the clause follows the noun. Same meaning; opposite architecture.
Bir yol ki sonu görünmez, yürümeye değer mi?
A road whose end cannot be seen — is it worth walking? (literary; the finite görünmez follows ki).
Why it feels foreign — and why it survived in literature
Every instinct of Turkish syntax is head-final: modifiers precede heads, subordinate clauses precede main verbs, the verb sits last. The ki-relative violates all of this because it is a direct calque of Persian relative syntax (mardî ki… "a man that…"), absorbed during the long centuries when Persian was the prestige literary language of the Ottoman world. It clung on precisely in the high-prestige registers — Divan poetry, ornate prose, chronicle, oratory — where Persianate elegance was the point. The native participial relative can become unwieldy when the relative clause is long or when the head's role inside the clause is oblique; the ki-relative, being finite and linear, sidesteps that and can feel more flowing, which is part of why poets favoured it.
O şair ki dizeleri yüzyıllardır okunur, mütevazı bir hayat sürmüş.
That poet whose verses have been read for centuries lived a modest life (literary register; finite okunur after ki).
Bir devir ki ne adalet vardı ne merhamet.
An age in which there was neither justice nor mercy (archaic/literary; a verbless ki-clause with var/yok).
The danger zone: don't produce it in modern prose
In contemporary writing — an email, an essay, a news report — the ki-relative is not an available option for ordinary relative clauses. Reach for it and a Turkish reader will hear either deliberate archaism (if you are clearly stylising) or a foreigner's calque of English "who/which/that" (far more likely). The neutral, correct modern form is always the participial relative. The free word ki does have living, non-archaic jobs — finite complement clauses (Sanıyorum ki…), result clauses (o kadar … ki…), set phrases (demek ki, iyi ki) — but those are covered on the ki-clauses page; its relativizing job is the archaic one.
Dün tanıştığım kadın çok kibardı.
The woman I met yesterday was very kind (modern, participial: tanıştığım precedes kadın).
Bana yardım eden komşumuz taşındı.
Our neighbour who helped me has moved away (modern, -An participle: yardım eden precedes komşumuz).
These are the everyday relatives you should produce. The ki versions (kadın ki dün onunla tanıştım…) would be jarringly old-fashioned.
Common mistakes
❌ Adam ki bana yardım etti çok kibardı.
Incorrect for modern prose — a ki-relative where the neutral participial relative is required; reads as a foreign calque of English 'the man who…'.
✅ Bana yardım eden adam çok kibardı.
The man who helped me was very kind (modern -An participle, pre-posed).
❌ Gözde ki yaş — written as two words.
Incorrect — this is the attached locative relativizer -ki, not the free relativizer; it must be written solid: gözdeki.
✅ Gözdeki yaş onu ele verdi.
The tear in his eye gave him away (gözdeki = göz + locative -de + suffix -ki, one word).
❌ Benim ki daha güzel.
Incorrect — the possessive 'the one of mine' is the attached suffix -ki, written solid; this is not the free relativizer.
✅ Benimki daha güzel.
Mine is nicer (benim + -ki, one word).
❌ Bir kitap ki onu okudum çok ilginçti — used in a casual conversation.
Incorrect register — a ki-relative in everyday speech sounds archaic and stilted, like saying 'a book the which I read' in English.
✅ Okuduğum kitap çok ilginçti.
The book I read was very interesting (the natural modern participial relative).
Key takeaways
- The relativizing ki is a Persian borrowing: a free word that puts a finite relative clause after the noun (adam ki herkes onu tanır) — the exact mirror of the native participial relative, which is finite-less and pre-posed.
- It often uses a resumptive pronoun (onu, ona, onun) inside the clause to point back at the head noun.
- It is archaic/literary, the language of Divan poetry, Ottoman prose, and deliberate stylisation — a reading skill, not something to produce in modern neutral prose.
- The neutral modern relative is always the participial one (-An, -DIK + possessive): yardım eden adam, okuduğum kitap.
- Do not confuse the free relativizer ki with the attached suffix -ki (gözdeki, masadaki, benimki), which is fully modern and written solid, nor with the living non-relative uses of free ki (sanıyorum ki, o kadar … ki).
Now practice Turkish
Reading grammar gets you part of the way. The exercises are where it sticks — free, no signup needed.
Start learning Turkish→Related Topics
- The Connector ki (Persian Borrowing)B2 — The one finite complementizer in Turkish — a Persian loan that lets a full clause follow, unlike native nominalization.
- ki-Clauses: Finite SubordinationB2 — The borrowed conjunction ki as a finite 'that' — Sanıyorum ki haklısın — its result and exclamative uses, and why native nominalization is preferred in neutral prose.
- Relative Clauses Without Relative PronounsB1 — How Turkish builds 'the film I saw' and 'the man who called me' with pre-nominal participles instead of who, which, or that.
- Historical/Ottoman-Tinged Text (C2)C2 — An original early-Republican-style passage annotated to reveal the Arabic and Persian vocabulary layers, Persian izafet, and pre-reform constructions, each mapped to its modern Öztürkçe equivalent.