Size notu e‑postayla gönderecektim, dosya şifreli kalmış.

I was going to email you the note; the file remained encrypted.

Breakdown of Size notu e‑postayla gönderecektim, dosya şifreli kalmış.

• göndermek: to send
• kalmak: to remain
• dosya: the file
• not: the note
• siz: you
• e-posta: the email
• ile: by
• şifreli: encrypted

Questions & Answers about Size notu e‑postayla gönderecektim, dosya şifreli kalmış.

What exactly does the tense/aspect in gönderecektim mean?

It’s the “future-in-the-past,” meaning “I was going to (but didn’t).” Morphology:

• gönder- = send
• -(y)ecek = future
• -ti = past (puts the future plan into the past)
• -m = 1sg So gönderecektim = “I was going to send,” typically implying the plan didn’t happen.

Why is it notu (with -u) and not just not?

The -u is the definite accusative, marking a specific, known object: notu = “the note.” Without -u (not) it would mean “a note/some note” (indefinite). Here the speaker refers to a particular note already known in context.

What’s the difference between sana and size, and why is size used?

• sana = “to you” (singular, informal)
• size = “to you” (plural or polite to one person) Using size shows politeness or addresses more than one person.

How does e‑postayla work? Why the -yla?

It’s the instrumental/comitative -la/-le (“with/by”), attached as a suffix:

• e‑posta (email) + buffer y (because the noun ends in a vowel) + -la → e‑postayla = “by email.” You can also write it separately as e‑posta ile; both are fine.

Why is there just a comma between the clauses and no ama (“but”)?

Turkish often links related clauses with a comma when the contrast is obvious. You could insert ama/fakat/ancak before the second clause for an explicit “but,” e.g., “..., ama dosya şifreli kalmış.”

What nuance does kalmış add in dosya şifreli kalmış?

The suffix -miş (evidential past) signals discovery or realization: “it turns out the file (ended up) being encrypted.” It softens the statement and implies the speaker learned this after the fact. Compare:

• kaldı = simple, factual “remained” (no discovery nuance)
• kalmış = “apparently/it seems it remained” (newfound info).

What’s the difference between şifreli, şifrelenmiş, and şifreli kalmış?

• şifreli: adjective “encrypted/password-protected” (state/property).
• şifrelenmiş: “(has been) encrypted” (result of an action; participle).
• şifreli kalmış: “(apparently) ended up remaining encrypted,” emphasizing the unintended, persisting state that the speaker discovered.

Can I change the word order, e.g., Notu size e‑postayla gönderecektim?

Yes. Turkish word order is flexible. The element right before the verb tends to be in focus. Examples:

• Size notu e‑postayla gönderecektim (neutral; slight focus on “by email”).
• Notu size e‑postayla gönderecektim (slight focus on “to you”).
• Size e‑postayla notu gönderecektim (focus on “the note” specifically).

Why not say sizi instead of size?

sizi is accusative (direct object “you”), but here “you” is an indirect object/recipient (“to you”), so it must be dative size. The direct object is notu.

Is there a difference between dosya şifreli kaldı and dosya şifreli kalmış?

Yes:

• kaldı: plain report, objective tone.
• kalmış: evidential/discovery tone (“apparently/turns out”), often used when explaining an unforeseen obstacle.

Are there more colloquial ways to say the first clause?

Yes:

• Size notu maille gönderecektim.
• Size mail atacaktım. (very colloquial)
• Size notu yollayacaktım. (yollamak = send) All mean roughly the same, with different registers.

Could I omit dosya and just say şifreli kalmış?

Only if the subject is crystal clear from context. Dosya makes it explicit that “the file” (not the note or the email) is the thing that stayed encrypted.

Why is it spelled gönderecektim and not gönderecekdim?

The past suffix -di assimilates to -ti after a voiceless consonant. Since gönderecek ends in voiceless k, you get gönderecek + ti + m → gönderecektim.