Learn Hardcore Turkish: Şirketin gelirleri artarken giderlerin kontrolsüz yükselmesi büyük zararlara yol açabilir. - While the company's revenues increase, uncontrolled rise of expenses can cause great harm.

The suffix -ken marks a simultaneous action, equivalent to English “while” or “as”. Here, artarken means “while (the revenues) are increasing.” It attaches directly to the verb stem (art- “increase”) to show that one event happens at the same time as another.

Why is Şirketin in the genitive case instead of nominative?

Şirketin is in the genitive case because it shows possession: “of the company.” The full phrase Şirketin gelirleri literally means “the revenues of the company.” In Turkish, the owner (possessor) takes the genitive suffix -in/-ın and the possessed noun takes the plural/possessive marker.

What role does -mesi play in yükselmesi?

The suffix -mesi is a third-person singular nominalizer. It turns the verb yüksel- (“to rise”) into the noun “its rising” or “the rise.” This allows the action to function as a subject or object within the larger sentence.

How does kontrolsüz modify the noun?

Kontrolsüz is an adjective formed from kontrol (“control”) + the suffix -süz (“without”). It describes yükselme as “uncontrolled”. In English we’d say “the uncontrolled rise.” Turkish adjectives precede the noun they modify, just like in English.

Why is giderlerin also in the genitive case?

In the nominal phrase giderlerin kontrolsüz yükselmesi, giderlerin (expenses) is genitive because it too shows possession of the nominalized action: “the uncontrolled rise of the expenses.” Every noun that “owns” another noun in Turkish takes the genitive suffix.

Why is zararlara in the dative case?

The idiom yol açmak (“to pave a way,” “to cause”) takes its object in the dative case to indicate “to/for something.” So büyük zararlara yol açabilir means “it can lead to big losses.” The losses are the target of the causing action, hence dative -a/-e with plural -lar: zararlara.

Can you explain the overall clause structure?

The sentence has two main parts linked by simultaneity:

Şirketin gelirleri artarken – “while the company’s revenues are increasing,”
giderlerin kontrolsüz yükselmesi büyük zararlara yol açabilir – “the uncontrolled rise of expenses can lead to great losses.”
No conjunction is needed because -ken handles the “while” relation, and the second clause stands on its own with a nominalized subject and a verb.

What nuance does yol açmak add compared to sebep olmak (“to cause”)?

Both mean “to cause,” but yol açmak literally “opens a path,” suggesting a process that leads to an outcome. It often feels more formal or literary. Sebep olmak is more neutral and common in everyday speech. Here, yol açabilir emphasizes that uncontrolled expense growth creates a pathway to large losses.