Learn Hardcore Turkish: Sonunda iki taraf da biraz ödün verdi ve anlaşma sağlandı. - In the end both sides made small concessions and an agreement was reached.

Literally, sonunda is “at its end” (son + 3sg possessive -u(n) + locative -da). In usage, it functions adverbially as “in the end, finally, eventually.” Near-synonyms: nihayet, en sonunda, sonunda artık (increasing emphasis).

Why is there da in iki taraf da? Does it mean “also”?

Yes. Here da is the clitic meaning “also/too,” and iki taraf da is a common way to say “both sides (too).” It emphasizes that the two parties alike did the action. Without da, iki taraf still means “both sides,” but you lose that inclusive/emphatic “too/as well” feel that is very natural in Turkish.

Why is it da and not de after taraf?

The clitic de/da obeys vowel harmony: after a back vowel (a, ı, o, u) you use da; after a front vowel (e, i, ö, ü) you use de. The last vowel in taraf is a (back), so you get da.

Is this da the same as the locative suffix in sonunda?

No. In iki taraf da, da is the separate clitic “also/too,” always written as a separate word and movable for emphasis. In sonunda, -da is the locative case suffix attached to the noun. Quick test: if you can move da around and it still means “also,” it’s the clitic; if it’s glued to a noun and means “in/at/on,” it’s the locative suffix.

Where should I place da in this phrase? Could it be elsewhere?

You normally attach it to the element you’re emphasizing:

İki taraf da biraz ödün verdi. (both sides)
Taraflar da biraz ödün verdi. (the sides, too)
In genitive constructions: iki tarafın da is common (both sides’ …). If you list items, you put it on each: A da B de kabul etti.

Why isn’t taraf plural after a number? Why not iki taraflar?

After numerals, Turkish uses the singular form: iki taraf, üç kişi, beş kitap. You only pluralize if you’re talking about the group in general without a number (e.g., taraflar = “the parties/sides”).

Should the verb be plural: verdiler instead of verdi?

Both are acceptable. With numerals or quantified subjects, Turkish usually uses the 3rd person singular verb: İki taraf da … verdi. Using plural (verdiler) is optional and can emphasize that the subject is human/agentive. In formal writing, the singular is more common.

What does the expression ödün vermek mean? Is there a synonym?

Ödün vermek means “to make/give a concession; to give ground,” often in negotiations. A very common synonym is taviz vermek (slightly more formal/bureaucratic in tone). You don’t say ödün yapmak.

Is ödün countable here? Can I say birkaç ödün verdi or ödünler verdi?

Yes, you can, if you mean discrete concessions: birkaç ödün verdi (“gave a few concessions”), bazı ödünler verdi. With biraz ödün verdi, ödün behaves more like an uncountable mass (“gave a bit of ground”).

What nuance does biraz add? Could I use something else?

Biraz = “a little, somewhat,” softening the extent. Alternatives:

az (little; can sound a bit starker)
azıcık / birazcık (a tiny bit; more colloquial/soft) Position is usually before the noun/verb phrase: biraz ödün verdi.

Why is it anlaşma sağlandı and not anlaşıldı?

Anlaşma sağlandı = “an agreement was achieved/reached.”
Anlaşıldı = “it was understood,” not “they reached an agreement.” Other natural ways to say it:

Anlaşmaya varıldı
Taraflar anlaştı
Anlaşma yapıldı (more “a contract/arrangement was made”)

What’s going on morphologically in sağlandı?

It is the passive past of sağlamak (“to ensure/secure/bring about”):

sağla- + n (passive) + dı (past) → sağlandı = “was secured/achieved.” The past suffix appears as -dı/-di/-du/-dü or -tı/-ti/-tu/-tü by consonant voicing and vowel harmony. After the voiced consonant n, you get -dı; the vowel is back/unrounded because the last vowel in sağlan- is a.

Pronunciation tips for tricky letters (like ğ) in anlaşma sağlandı?

ğ is not a hard “g”; it lengthens/smooths the preceding vowel: sağ ≈ “saa.”
ş is “sh” in anlaşma.
Vowels: ö (front rounded, as in French “deux” but rounded), ü (front rounded “u,” like German “ü”). Rough guide: an-LASH-ma saa-LAN-dı.

Can I change the word order?

Yes, Turkish is flexible with word order for emphasis:

Sonunda anlaşma sağlandı ve iki taraf da biraz ödün verdi. (Result first)
İki taraf da biraz ödün verdi ve sonunda anlaşma sağlandı. (Process then result) Default is to keep the finite verb at the end of each clause.

What happens if I drop da: İki taraf biraz ödün verdi?

It’s grammatically fine and still means both sides did it. The da merely adds a very natural inclusive/emphatic tone (“both sides, too”), often implying contrast with earlier expectations or other parties.

Why is ödün not marked with the accusative (-ı)?

Because it’s non-specific/indefinite. Turkish marks definite/specific direct objects with accusative:

Indefinite: biraz ödün verdi (“gave some concession”).
Definite/specific: ödünü verdi (“gave the [previously identified] concession”).

How else can I say “they reached an agreement,” actively?

Taraflar anlaştı.
Taraflar anlaşmaya vardı.
More formal: Taraflar anlaşma sağladı. Passive/impersonal variants (very common in news): Anlaşma sağlandı / Anlaşmaya varıldı / Mutabakata varıldı.

Is there a difference between anlaşma and uzlaşma?

Yes. Anlaşma is a general “agreement/accord,” any settled understanding. Uzlaşma highlights “compromise/reconciliation” (meeting in the middle). In a negotiation where concessions matter, uzlaşma can be slightly more pointed about compromise, but anlaşma is the broader, default term.