Learn Hardcore Turkish: Eve döndüğümde yağmur durmuştu, ama rüzgâr hâlâ esiyordu. - When I got home, the rain had stopped, but the wind was still blowing.

dön- = return/turn
-DIK = participle/nominalizer “the fact/time that ...” (here appears as -düğ- by vowel harmony)
-üm = 1st person singular possessive “my”
-de = locative “at/in” (used to make “when”)

Put together: dön + düğ + üm + de → “at the time when I returned,” i.e., “when I returned.”

Notes:

Vowel harmony turns -DIK into -dük/-dük/-dık/-dik; here it becomes -düğ- before a vowel.
The final k of -DIK softens to ğ between vowels: -dük + -üm → -düğüm.

Why is it eve and not evde or evime?

eve is the dative case “to home/house,” required by dönmek when you talk about returning to a place.
evde is the locative “at home,” not correct with “return to.”
evime means “to my home.” You can say evime döndüğümde, and it’s natural; however, with “home,” Turkish often uses the bare eve because it’s understood you’re going to your own home unless context says otherwise.

Why is it yağmur durmuştu instead of a simple past like yağmur durdu?

Durmuştu is the past perfect (pluperfect): “had stopped.” The clause Eve döndüğümde sets a past reference time (your arrival). Using durmuştu shows the stopping happened before that point. Using durdu would place the stopping right then at your arrival, changing the timeline.

Does -mişti here imply hearsay or uncertainty?

No. In the form -mişti, the -miş plus past copula -di functions as past perfect and the evidential nuance is neutralized. It simply marks an earlier completed past action relative to another past point. Stand-alone -miş (e.g., durmuş) can carry inferential/hearsay nuance, but durmuştu is read as plain pluperfect.

Why is it rüzgâr hâlâ esiyordu and not esti?

Esiyordu is past progressive: “was blowing.” It describes an ongoing background action at that past time. Esti would be a simple, completed past (“blew”) and wouldn’t fit the idea of it still continuing then.

What’s the morphology of esiyordu?

es- = blow
-iyor = present progressive
-du = past marker

Together: esi-yor-du → “was blowing.”

What’s the difference between döndüğümde and dönünce?

Both can mean “when I returned,” but:

döndüğümde is more precise/literary and can feel more anchored to a specific time point.
dönünce (the -ince/-unca suffix) is very common and slightly more casual/neutral for temporal “when.” Here, Eve dönünce yağmur durmuştu is also natural. Subtle stylistic preference decides.

Can I say Eve döndüğüm zaman instead?

Yes. -DIK + zaman (“the time when ...”) is another standard way to form time clauses: Eve döndüğüm zaman yağmur durmuştu. It’s a bit more explicit and slightly more formal-sounding than -düğümde.

What does hâlâ mean, and why the circumflex?

Hâlâ means “still” (continuing up to that time). The circumflex over â marks length/palatalization in careful writing and distinguishes it from hala (without circumflex), which means “paternal aunt.” In informal writing many people omit the circumflex, but it’s useful: hâlâ = still; hala = aunt.

What does the circumflex in rüzgâr indicate? Is rüzgar wrong?

The circumflex in rüzgâr shows a slight length/palatal quality on â after g in careful/standard spelling. Writing rüzgar is very common and generally acceptable, especially informally. Both are understood; dictionaries often prefer rüzgâr.

How do you pronounce the Turkish ğ in this sentence?

Turkish ğ (yumuşak g) does not make a hard “g” sound. It lengthens the preceding vowel or creates a slight glide:

yağmur ≈ “yaamur” (a lengthened “a”)
döndüğümde ≈ “dön-düüüm-de” (lengthened “ü”) Note: rüzgâr has a regular g, not ğ.

Could I move hâlâ around in the clause?

Yes. Common placements:

Rüzgâr hâlâ esiyordu (neutral)
Hâlâ rüzgâr esiyordu (focus on “still”)
Rüzgâr esiyordu hâlâ (colloquial/emphatic at the end) All are understandable; the first is the most neutral.

Is the comma before ama necessary? And should there be a comma after the initial clause?

The comma before ama is standard because it separates two independent clauses.
After a short initial time clause like Eve döndüğümde, the comma is optional. Many writers omit it if the clause is short: both “Eve döndüğümde, yağmur...” and “Eve döndüğümde yağmur...” are acceptable.

Could I add the subject pronoun: Ben eve döndüğümde?

Yes. Turkish usually drops subject pronouns because person/number are marked on the verb. Adding Ben is fine if you want emphasis or contrast (“When I returned…” as opposed to someone else).

Are there good synonyms for yağmur durmuştu?

Yes:

Yağmur dinmişti = “The rain had subsided/stopped” (very natural for rain).
Yağmur kesilmişti = “The rain had ceased.”
All carry the same timeline: completed before your return.

Why are there no articles like “the” in Turkish (e.g., just yağmur, rüzgâr)?

Turkish has no definite or indefinite articles. Bare nouns often map to English “the” or generic/unmarked nouns depending on context. Here, yağmur and rüzgâr mean “the rain” and “the wind” in English because they refer to the specific weather at that time.

Is word order flexible here?

To a degree, yes, although the verb typically comes last in each clause:

Eve döndüğümde yağmur durmuştu (as given)
Yağmur durmuştu, eve döndüğümde (possible but marked; puts focus on the timing)
In the second clause, Rüzgâr hâlâ esiyordu is the neutral order; moving elements changes emphasis rather than core meaning.

Can I say geri dönmek instead of just dönmek?

Yes. Geri dönmek = “to return/go back.” With destinations you can say eve geri döndüğümde. It’s a bit more explicit (“return back”), but with eve (“home”) plain dönmek already implies returning.