Learn Hardcore Turkish: Kimlik olmadan ne odaya ne de salona girilir. - Without an ID, you enter neither the room nor the hall.

Girilir is the passive aorist of girmek (to enter). It literally means “is entered,” but in practice it functions like English impersonal “one enters/people enter” or “(it) is allowed/possible to enter,” depending on context.

Morphology: gir- (enter) + -il- (passive) + -ir (aorist, 3rd person singular) → girilir.
The aorist (geniş zaman) is used for general rules, habits, and timeless statements, which is why it fits signs/rules.

Why is the verb affirmative (girilir) even though the sentence is negative in meaning?

In Turkish, ne … ne de … (“neither … nor …”) itself carries the negation of the clause. The finite verb often remains affirmative:

Example pattern: Ne Ahmet geldi ne de Ayşe (geldi). The verb is affirmative in form, but the meaning is negative.
So Kimlik olmadan ne odaya ne de salona girilir is grammatically affirmative but semantically “no entry” to either place without ID.

Would girilmez be better than girilir here?

Both are heard. Nuance:

girilir with ne … ne de … is a formally correct way to express a negative, especially in descriptive statements.
girilmez (negative passive aorist) is very common on rules/signs and sounds more explicitly prohibitive. Many people would naturally say: Kimlik olmadan ne odaya ne de salona girilmez. Neither choice is “wrong”; girilmez simply foregrounds prohibition.

What’s the difference between girilmez and girilemez?

girilmez = “(it) is not entered” → typically used for bans/prohibitions: “No entry.”
girilemez = passive + abilitative + negative → “cannot be entered” (impossibility or lack of permission/capability). For signs/rules, girilmez is the default. Girilemez implies impossibility or absolute inability (e.g., door is locked/blocked).

What does ne … ne de … mean and how does it work?

It means “neither … nor ….”

It negates both coordinated items and, by extension, the whole predicate.
The verb typically remains in the affirmative form (no -ma/-me), because ne … ne de … already negates.

Why is de only before the second item (ne odaya ne de salona)?

That’s the standard pattern: ne X ne de Y. The de here is the clitic meaning “also/too,” used to pair the second item. You’ll also see ne X ne Y (without the second de), which is acceptable but less common; with this correlative, de is optional.

Is the de in ne de the same as the locative suffix -de/-da?

No. In ne de, de is a separate clitic (spelled separately) meaning “also/too.” The locative suffix -de/-da is attached to a noun (e.g., salonda = “in the hall”) and is written together with it.

Why are odaya and salona in the -a/-e case?

Because girmek (to enter) selects the dative case (-a/-e) for its goal:

odaya girmek = to enter the room
salona girmek = to enter the hall/living room

Do I have to repeat the case on both items?

Yes. In Turkish, each coordinated noun must carry the case required by the verb:

Correct: ne odaya ne de salona (both dative)
Wrong: ne odaya ne de salon (second lacks case)

Who is the subject here? There’s no “he/she/they.”

There’s no explicit subject. The passive aorist girilir creates an impersonal, rule-like statement:

Think: “One does not enter” / “No entry.” This impersonal passive is common in notices and general rules.

What tense/aspect is girilir?

It’s the aorist (geniş zaman), used for general truths, habitual actions, and rules. That’s why it suits signage and policy statements.

Could I say this actively with “you” (sen) or “people” (insanlar)?

You could, but it sounds less neutral:

Direct/you: Kimlik olmadan ne odaya ne de salona giremezsin. (You cannot enter…)
Generic/people: Kimlik olmadan insanlar ne odaya ne de salona girmez. The passive impersonal (girilmez/girilir) is the most idiomatic for rules.

Why kimlik olmadan and not kimliksiz? Are both correct?

Both are fine, with slight nuance:

kimlik olmadan = “without ID (at that moment)” → action-focused absence.
kimliksiz = “ID-less” → describes the person’s state/quality. Either works here: Kimlik olmadan… / Kimliksiz…. For formal style, kimlik olmaksızın is also possible.

Should I add “bir” (an) as in “without an ID”?

No. Turkish normally omits an article in such “without X” contexts:

Natural: Kimlik olmadan…
Odd/heavy: Bir kimlik olmadan… Context supplies the indefiniteness.

Can I swap the places of odaya and salona, or move phrases around?

Yes, Turkish word order is flexible for focus:

Kimlik olmadan ne salona ne de odaya girilir.
Ne odaya ne de salona kimlik olmadan girilir. All are grammatical; the meaning stays the same, but emphasis shifts slightly.

Could I use veya/ya da instead of ne … ne de …?

Yes, if you make the predicate explicitly negative:

Kimlik olmadan odaya veya (ya da) salona girilmez. This means “You cannot enter the room or the hall without ID.” Ne … ne de … emphasizes “neither of the two,” whereas veya/ya da is the ordinary “or.”

Is it okay to use a positive verb with ne … ne de … in all tenses?

Yes, the pattern is widely used across tenses/aspects, and the verb commonly remains positive:

Ne arıyorum ne de soruyorum.
Ne geldi ne de aradı. Using a negative verb with ne … ne de … also occurs in speech (e.g., with girilmez), especially for prohibitions, but the “strict” pattern keeps the verb affirmative.

Does the verb agree in plural because there are two places?

No. With ne … ne de … as a compound subject or coordinated objects, the verb typically stays in third-person singular:

Ne odaya ne de salona girilir. (singular is standard)