Learn Hardcore Turkish: Telefonum bozuldu, tamirciye tamir ettirdim. - My phone broke; I had it repaired by the technician.

In the first clause, telefonum (my phone) is the subject of bozuldu (broke down). In the second clause, the subject is implied ben (I) because of the verb ending -dim in ettirdim. So: “My phone broke down; I had it repaired (by someone).”

Does “tamir ettirdim” mean I repaired it myself?

No. Tamir ettirdim is causative: “I had it repaired / I got it repaired (by someone else).” If you yourself repair it, you’d say tamir ettim (“I repaired it.”).

Why is it “tamirciye” with the dative -e?

In causative constructions, the person you cause to do the action (the “causee”) is often marked with the dative: tamirciye (“to the repairman”). So tamirciye tamir ettirdim = “I had the repairman repair (it).” Without -e, tamirci would not be correctly marked as the causee.

Where is the direct object in the second clause?

It’s omitted because it’s obvious from context. You can include it for clarity: Telefonumu tamirciye tamir ettirdim. Turkish often drops objects that are already known or mentioned.

What’s the difference between “bozuldu” and “kırıldı”?

Bozuldu: stopped working, malfunctioned (typical for devices).
Kırıldı: got physically broken/cracked (typical for glass, screens, objects).
So a phone that won’t turn on: bozuldu; a shattered screen: kırıldı.

Why is the past tense -du in “bozuldu” but -di in “ettirdim”?

Vowel harmony/allomorphy:

bozuldu: last vowel in the stem is back (o/u), so past = -du.
ettirdim: last vowel is front (i), so past = -di; then 1sg = -m.
Also note consonant voicing: after a voiced consonant, -d- remains -d-.

What’s going on morphologically in “tamir ettirdim”?

tamir (repair) + et- (do) form the light-verb compound tamir etmek (“to repair”).
Causative suffix -tir- on et- gives ettir- (the t doubles by assimilation).
Past -di
- 1sg -m → ettirdim = “I had [it] repaired.”
  It’s written as two words: tamir ettirmek (not “tamirettirmek”).

Could I say “tamir yaptırdım” instead?

Yes. Yaptırmak (causative of “yapmak”) with tamir is common: tamir yaptırdım ≈ tamir ettirdim. Both mean “I had it repaired,” with no major difference in everyday use.

How is “tamir edildi” different from “tamir ettirdim”?

Tamir edildi = “It was repaired” (passive; agent unspecified).
Tamir ettirdim = “I had it repaired” (you as causer are explicit).
Use the passive when the doer isn’t important; use the causative to show you arranged it.

Is the comma necessary? Could I use “ve”?

The comma simply links two sequential statements. You could say Telefonum bozuldu ve tamirciye tamir ettirdim. Turkish often uses a comma (parataxis) where English would use “and.”

Is the word order fixed? Can I move things around?

Turkish is generally SOV (verb-final). Common options:

Telefonumu tamirciye tamir ettirdim.
Tamirciye telefonumu tamir ettirdim.
Both are fine; elements just before the verb tend to be in focus. Avoid putting the verb before its objects unless you want special emphasis.

Do I need “bir” before “tamirciye”?

No. Tamirciye can be indefinite by default (“to a repairman”). Bir tamirciye adds the nuance of “to some repairman” or introduces a new, unspecified person more emphatically.

What would “tamir ettirtmek” mean?

That’s a double causative: “to have someone get (something) repaired,” i.e., you cause a middle person to arrange the repair by someone else. Here, tamir ettirdim (single causative) is correct and simpler.

Why no apostrophe in “tamirciye”?

Apostrophes mark suffixes after proper nouns only (e.g., Ahmet’e). Tamirci is a common noun, so it’s tamirciye (no apostrophe).

Could I use the -miş past, like “bozulmuş”?

Yes, with a nuance: bozulmuş signals hearsay/inference (“apparently/it turns out it broke”). Bozuldu states a plain, certain past event.

Why “telefonum” here but “telefonumu” would appear in the second clause?

Telefonum = subject with 1sg possessive (“my phone”) in the first clause.
If repeated as object in the second clause, it takes the accusative: telefonumu (“my phone [as DO]”).
The sentence leaves it implicit because it’s obvious.