Learn Hardcore Turkish: Kapıcı aidatı zaten toplamıştı, ama uyarı kâğıdı kalmıştı. - The doorman had already collected the dues, but the warning paper had remained.

It’s the building’s doorman/janitor/caretaker—the person who handles chores like collecting fees, cleaning common areas, etc. It literally comes from kapı (door) + the agentive suffix -cı. More neutral/modern alternatives you’ll also hear are kapı görevlisi or apartman görevlisi.

What is aidat/aidatı? Why is it singular?

Aidat is the monthly building maintenance fee. Kapıcı aidatı usually refers to the part of the maintenance fee that covers the caretaker’s salary (or, loosely, the building fee the caretaker collects). The singular aidatı can be used generically; if you want to emphasize multiple apartments’ payments, you can say aidatlar or aidatları (the latter is “the dues,” definite/plural).

Why does aidatı end with -ı? Is that the accusative? Why not aidatını?

The -ı here is not accusative; it’s the 3rd-person possessive used in an indefinite noun–noun compound (Turkish: belirtisiz isim tamlaması): kapıcı aidatı ≈ “caretaker fee.” In such compounds, the second noun takes a 3rd-person possessive ending: aidat-ı.

If you want to mark a definite direct object, you add the accusative after the possessive: kapıcı aidat-ın-ı → kapıcı aidatını (“the caretaker fee” in a specific, definite sense).
In the sentence given, the object is not being marked as definite; hence aidatı (compound) is fine.

If I mean “my fee,” how would I say it?

Use the 1st-person possessive (and accusative if it’s a definite object): aidatım (my fee), aidatımı (my fee as a definite object). For example: Kapıcı aidatımı zaten toplamıştı.

What does zaten add? Could I use çoktan instead?

Zaten means “already/anyway/as it is,” often implying “this was expected or known.” It underlines that the first fact should have prevented the second from happening. Çoktan means “long since/by now,” focusing on how early the action happened. Compare:

Aidatı zaten toplamıştı. = He had already collected it (so a warning is unnecessary).
Aidatı çoktan toplamıştı. = He had collected it long before (temporal emphasis).

What tense/aspect are toplamıştı and kalmıştı?

They’re past perfect (pluperfect): “had collected,” “had remained/been left.” Morphology: topla-mış-tı, kal-mış-tı. This is the -mış (perfect/inferential) plus idi (“was”), contracted to -tı. It places both actions earlier than some past reference point.

Does -mış here mean “apparently/they say”?

Not in -mıştı. In -mış alone (e.g., toplamış) it often implies hearsay or inference. When combined with -dı/idi as -mıştı, it functions as a neutral pluperfect (“had done”), without necessarily implying hearsay.

Why is it -tı (not -dı) in toplamıştı / kalmıştı?

The past marker -DI obeys consonant harmony: after a voiceless consonant like ş, it surfaces as -tı. Hence mış + dı → mıştı.

What does kalmak mean here? Why not a passive like bırakılmıştı?

Kalmak with things means “to remain, be left (behind).” Uyarı kâğıdı kalmıştı emphasizes the resulting state: “a warning slip (ended up) remaining/being left.” The passive bırakılmıştı (“had been left”) points to an (unknown) agent’s action. Both are possible; kalmak is more result-state/stance-of-affairs, often used when no agent matters.

Why is it uyarı kâğıdı, not uyarı kağıt? And what is the -ı on kâğıdı?

It’s the same compound pattern: uyarı kâğıdı is an indefinite noun–noun compound (“warning paper/notice”), so the second noun takes the 3rd-person possessive -ı: kâğıt-ı → kâğıdı. It’s not accusative here; it’s part of the compound.

What’s with the circumflex in kâğıdı and the letter ğ? How do I pronounce it?

In kâğıt, ğ doesn’t make a hard “g” sound; it lengthens the preceding vowel. So kâğıt is pronounced roughly “kaat,” and kâğıdı “kaa-dı.” The circumflex (â) marks a long or slightly palatalized vowel; many people omit it in casual writing (kağıdı), and that’s widely accepted.

Why is there no bir (“a/an”) before uyarı kâğıdı?

Turkish often omits bir in existential/resultative statements with kalmak/var/yok when indefiniteness is clear: Uyarı kâğıdı kalmıştı ≈ “A warning slip had been left.” You can add bir (Bir uyarı kâğıdı kalmıştı) to stress “one/a single,” but it isn’t required.

Can I move zaten around? Does word order change the nuance?

Yes, placement changes focus:

Kapıcı aidatı zaten toplamıştı… (neutral; backgrounding the “already” fact)
Kapıcı zaten aidatı toplamıştı… (emphasizes that for the doorman, this was already done)
Zaten kapıcı aidatı toplamıştı… (fronted; frames the clause as given/expected information)

All are grammatical; choose based on what you want to highlight.

Is the comma before ama necessary?

When ama links two independent clauses, a comma is standard and helps readability: …, ama …. You’ll also see it without a comma in informal writing, but the comma is preferred.

Why is it kâğıdı (with d) but aidatı (with t)?

Some final consonants voice before vowel-initial suffixes (e.g., kağıt → kâğıdı, kitap → kitabı, ağaç → ağacı). But many words—especially certain Arabic/Persian loans or fixed forms—do not voice: sanat → sanatı, devlet → devleti, aidat → aidatı. So voicing is common but not universal; you learn which stems voice with usage.

Could we say Aidat toplanmıştı instead of Kapıcı aidatı toplamıştı?

Yes, but it changes the perspective. Aidat toplanmıştı is passive/impersonal: “The dues had been collected (by someone).” Kapıcı aidatı toplamıştı is active and names the agent (the doorman).

Is there any difference among ama, fakat, ancak, oysa/halbuki?

All express contrast, but tone differs:

ama = but (neutral, very common in speech)
fakat/ancak = but/however (slightly more formal; ancak often sentence-initial)
oysa / halbuki = whereas/though (contrast to an expectation; stronger adversative)