Somut kanıt ikna edici.

to be

Breakdown of Somut kanıt ikna edici.

• kanıt: the evidence
• ikna edici: persuasive
• somut: concrete

Questions & Answers about Somut kanıt ikna edici.

Where is the verb “is” in Somut kanıt ikna edici?

Turkish often drops a separate “to be” in the 3rd person present. The predicate adjective ikna edici itself conveys “is convincing.” You may add the copular suffix for formality or certainty: Somut kanıt ikna edicidir. For other persons you use personal endings, e.g. Ben ikna ediciyim, Sen ikna edicisin.

What does each word do here?

• somut: adjective “concrete, tangible” (opposite: soyut).
• kanıt: noun “evidence; proof.”
• ikna edici: adjective phrase “convincing,” literally “persuading/that persuades.”

Why is there no “the” or “a”?

Turkish has no definite article. Bare nouns can be generic or indefinite by context. If you want “a,” use bir: Somut bir kanıt ikna edici. To say “the,” use a demonstrative: Bu/O somut kanıt ikna edici. Note that kanıt is countable in Turkish, so bir kanıt / kanıtlar are normal.

When would I add -dir (as in ikna edicidir)?

Use -dir for a more formal, neutral, or “general truth” tone, or when drawing a firm conclusion. Everyday speech usually omits it: Somut kanıt ikna edici. Formal/written: Somut kanıt ikna edicidir.

Why is ikna edici two words?

Because it comes from the light-verb compound ikna et- (“to persuade”). The adjectival maker -ici/-ıcı/-ucu/-ücü attaches to the light verb: ikna et- + -ici → ikna edici (with t → d between vowels: et- → ed-). With non-compound verbs it’s one word, e.g. inandır- → inandırıcı (“convincing”).

How do I pronounce the dotless ı and these words?

• ı: a back, unrounded vowel (no exact English equivalent; a relaxed “uh” without lip rounding).
• somut: so-MUT (stress usually on the last syllable).
• kanıt: ka-NIT (the second vowel is dotless ı).
• ikna: ik-NA.
• edici: e-di-JEE (Turkish c sounds like English “j” in “jam”).

Can I change the word order?

Neutral Turkish puts the predicate last. Somut kanıt (subject) + ikna edici (predicate) is the default. If you say İkna edici somut kanıt, that’s a noun phrase (“convincing concrete evidence”), not a complete sentence.

How do I negate this sentence?

Use değil to negate nominal/adjectival predicates:

• Somut kanıt ikna edici değil.
• More formal: Somut kanıt ikna edici değildir.

How do I put it in the past or future?

Attach tense to the predicate:

• Past: Somut kanıt ikna ediciydi. (“was convincing”)
• Future (with olmak): Somut kanıt ikna edici olacak.
• Reported/inferential: Somut kanıt ikna ediciymiş. Note the buffer y after a vowel: edici-y-di / edici-y-miş.

How do I say “The concrete evidence is convincing” specifically?

Use a demonstrative:

• Bu somut kanıt ikna edici. (“This concrete evidence is convincing.”)
• O somut kanıt ikna edici. (“That concrete evidence is convincing.”)

Should I use singular or plural here? Do adjectives agree?

For a general statement, singular is fine: Somut kanıt ikna edici. If you mean multiple items, use plural: Somut kanıtlar ikna edici. Adjectives don’t agree in number or gender in this position, so the predicate stays ikna edici, not ikna ediciler (the latter is only used in special, mainly human-subject contexts).

Is ikna edici the same as inandırıcı?

They overlap and both can mean “convincing.” Nuance:

• ikna edici: emphasizes persuading someone (the effect on a person).
• inandırıcı: emphasizes being believable/credible. In many contexts, either works.

What’s the difference between kanıt, delil, and ispat?

• kanıt: the common, neutral word for “evidence/proof.”
• delil: close synonym, frequent in legal/religious/formal registers.
• ispat: “proof” as the act/result of proving; common in math/formal contexts (verb: ispatlamak “to prove”).

What’s the opposite of somut?

soyut (“abstract”). Examples: somut örnek (“concrete example”), soyut kavram (“abstract concept”).