Learn Hardcore Turkish: Sonuçta tüm şüpheler dağılmıştı ve gerekçeler belgelerle kanıtlanmıştı. - In the end all doubts had faded and the justifications had been proven with documents.

dağıl-mış-tı = had dispersed/dissipated
kanıtla-n-mış-tı = had been proven The -mış part marks a resultant state/inferential past; adding -tı anchors it in the past, yielding “earlier-than-past.”

What’s the difference between dağılmıştı / kanıtlanmıştı and dağıldı / kanıtlandı?

-dı (simple past) states a past event: “were dispelled / were proven.”
-mıştı (pluperfect) says that, by the time we’re talking about, the situation was already accomplished: “had been dispelled / had been proven.” It adds a sense of “already by then.”

The subjects are plural (şüpheler, gerekçeler). Shouldn’t the verbs be plural too (like dağılmışlardı, kanıtlanmışlardı)?

Turkish usually uses third-person singular verb agreement with plural subjects, especially when they’re inanimate or abstract. Plural agreement (-lardı/-lerdi) is optional and more common with human subjects or when you want to stress individual actions. Here, singular is the natural choice:

Natural: Şüpheler dağılmıştı. Gerekçeler … kanıtlanmıştı.
Possible but marked/emphatic (and less natural with inanimates): … dağılmışlardı / kanıtlanmışlardı.

Is dağılmıştı a passive? Why not dağıtılmıştı?

dağılmak is intransitive (“to disperse/dissipate”), so şüpheler dağılmıştı literally means “the doubts had dispersed.” It’s the idiomatic way to say “were dispelled.”
dağıtmak is transitive (“to scatter/distribute something”), so şüpheler dağıtılmıştı would mean “the doubts had been distributed,” which is wrong. If you want a true passive of “remove/eliminate,” you could use giderilmek: Şüpheler giderilmişti.

Does belgelerle mean “by the documents” or “with/through documents”? When would I use -tarafından?

-le/ile here marks instrument/means: belgelerle = “with/through documents (as evidence).”
Use X tarafından to name an agent/doer in a passive: e.g., uzmanlar tarafından (“by experts”). Saying belgeler tarafından is odd because documents aren’t agents; they’re the means. A natural combination would be: uzmanlar tarafından belgelerle kanıtlanmıştı.

Can you break down the morphology of the verbs?

dağıl-mış-tı
- dağıl- (root: “to disperse/dissipate”)
- -mış (resultative/inferential past)
- -tı (past; together with -mış = pluperfect)
kanıt-la-n-mış-tı
- kanıt (“proof”)
- -la (verbalizer: “to make/provide proof,” i.e., “to prove”)
- -n (passive: “to be proven”)
- -mış (resultative/inferential past)
- -tı (past; pluperfect with -mış)
belge-ler-le = belge (document) + plural -ler
- instrumental -le (“with documents”)

What’s the nuance of gerekçe versus neden/sebep?

gerekçe: “justification/grounds,” often formal, legal, or argumentative (why something is justified).
neden/sebep: “cause/reason” in a broader, more general sense.
So gerekçeler sounds like “the justifications/grounds,” fitting a formal or evidentiary context.

Does Sonuçta mean the same as Sonunda or Sonuç olarak?

Sonuçta: “ultimately / as a result” (draws a conclusion).
Sonunda: “finally / in the end” (often after waiting or effort).
Sonuç olarak: “as a result” (explicitly marks a conclusion; a bit more formal).
Here, Sonuçta nicely signals a concluding summary of what had already happened by that point.

How do I pronounce the ğ in dağılmıştı?

Turkish ğ lengthens/smooths the preceding vowel; it’s not a hard “g.” In dağı…, the a is lengthened and glides into ı: roughly “daa-ıl-mış-tı.” Don’t try to pronounce a distinct “g” sound there.

Why is there no word for “the” before şüpheler and gerekçeler?

Turkish has no articles like “the/a.” Definiteness is read from context, word order, and case. Plurals without an article can map to “the Xs” or just “Xs” in English. Tüm (“all”) already helps signal definiteness: tüm şüpheler ≈ “all (the) doubts.”

Why is belgelerle one word? Could I write belgeler ile?

Both are correct. ile can stand alone or attach as -le/-la (after a consonant) or -yle/-yla (after a vowel). Here, consonant-final belgeler takes -le: belgelerle. The attached form is more common in fluent writing.

Can the word order change?

Yes—Turkish is flexible. You can move adverbials and subjects for emphasis:

Tüm şüpheler sonuçta dağılmıştı… (emphasizes “all doubts”)
Sonuçta gerekçeler belgelerle kanıtlanmıştı… (as given; neutral) Keep the verb at or near the end of its clause for the most natural flow.

Where would I put “already” (zaten)?

Place zaten before the verb phrase, typically after the subject (or right after Sonuçta):

Sonuçta tüm şüpheler zaten dağılmıştı…
Sonuçta gerekçeler zaten belgelerle kanıtlanmıştı.

What’s the role of tüm here? Could I use bütün or hepsi?

tüm and bütün both mean “all/entire.” tüm is slightly more formal; both are fine: tüm şüpheler / bütün şüpheler.
hepsi is a pronoun (“all of them”), so you’d say şüphelerin hepsi (“all of the doubts”).

Does -mış add a “hearsay/inferential” meaning here?

In isolation, -mış can imply inference/report. In -mıştı, that nuance is largely neutralized by the past anchoring; the form functions primarily as a pluperfect (“had …”). Context decides whether there’s any flavor of inference, but in a factual summary like this, it just reads as “had ….”

Any near-synonyms that keep the same idea?

şüphe ≈ kuşku (kuşku is a bit more literary/pure-Turkish)
kanıt ≈ ispat (ispat is more formal/Arabic-derived); kanıtlamak/ispatlamak
gerekçe ≈ dayanak (ground/basis) depending on context
“to remove doubts”: şüpheleri gidermek / ortadan kaldırmak
All of these fit similar registers, with small nuance differences.