Learn Hardcore Turkish: O, toplantı uzadı diye ısrar etti; ben de ısrarla kısa tutmamız gerektiğini söyledim. - He insisted that the meeting ran long; I insisted we should keep it short.

diye introduces the content or justification of someone’s words or attitude: “saying that / on the grounds that / because.” Here, toplantı uzadı is packaged as the reason or claim for his insisting. Rough paraphrases:

“He insisted, saying that the meeting ran long.”
“He insisted on the grounds that the meeting had run long.” Alternatives for a purely causal reading: toplantı uzadığı için ısrar etti (“he insisted because…”). For a “by saying” nuance: toplantı uzadı diyerek ısrar etti (somewhat more literary/formal).

Why not use ki (as “that”), like ısrar etti ki…?

With verbs of insisting, urging, etc., Turkish strongly prefers diye or a nominalized clause, not ki. So O, toplantı uzadı diye ısrar etti is natural; … ısrar etti ki … is odd. Note: with demek/söylemek, ki is common in direct reporting (e.g., Dedi ki…), but not with ısrar etmek.

Is the comma after O correct? And what about the semicolon?

In modern Turkish you normally do not put a comma between subject and predicate. Prefer: O toplantı uzadı diye ısrar etti; ben de ısrarla kısa tutmamız gerektiğini söyledim. The semicolon is fine to link two closely related independent clauses; a period would also work. A comma alone would be too weak.

What’s the difference between ısrar etti and ısrarla?

ısrar etmek is the verb “to insist.”
ısrarla is an adverb meaning “insistently/with insistence.” In the first clause, he actually “insisted” (ısrar etti). In the second, the speaker “said (it) insistently” (ısrarla söyledim)—choosing to emphasize the manner of saying rather than repeating ısrar ettim. You could also say:
Ben de kısa tutmamız gerektiği konusunda ısrar ettim.
Ben de toplantıyı kısa tutmakta ısrar ettim.

What exactly does kısa tutmak mean?

kısa tutmak is a set phrase: “to keep (something) short/brief.” It’s common with events like meetings, talks, phone calls. Close options:

kısa kesmek (more colloquial; can sound a bit brusque: “cut it short”)
uzatmamak (“not to prolong it”)

Why is there no object after kısa tutmamız? Shouldn’t it say toplantıyı kısa tutmamız?

The object is understood from context (the meeting). Turkish routinely drops obvious elements. You can say it explicitly: toplantıyı kısa tutmamız gerektiğini söyledim, but it isn’t necessary.

What does the -mız in tutmamız indicate?

It marks the subject of the embedded action: “our keeping (it) short.” Breakdown:

tut-ma-mız = “our keeping” (verb stem tut-
- nominalizer -ma
  - 1pl possessor -mız)
Then … gerektiğini = “that [it] was necessary.” Together: kısa tutmamız gerektiğini = “that we needed to keep it short.”

How is gerektiğini formed, and why does it have the final -nı?

gerektiğini = gerek-tiğ-i-ni.

gerek- (root “necessary/to be necessary”)
-tiğ- (the -(y)DIK nominalizer, realized as -tiğ- here)
-i (3rd person singular possessive)
-ni = accusative (buffer -n- + -i), because the whole clause is the direct object of söyledim. So it literally means “its being necessary,” marked as an object: “I said [its being necessary that we keep it short].”

Could I say kısa tutmalıyız instead? What’s the difference?

Yes, but it changes how you report the speech.

Indirect report (as in the original): Ben de kısa tutmamız gerektiğini söyledim.
Direct quote: Ben de ‘Kısa tutmalıyız’ dedim. Avoid mixing them: … kısa tutmalıyız gerektiğini … is ungrammatical.

Why use söyledim instead of dedim?

With a nominalized content clause (… gerektiğini), söylemek is more idiomatic. demek is perfect with direct quotes: ‘Kısa tutmalıyız,’ dedim. While … gerektiğini dedim is sometimes heard, … gerektiğini söyledim is the natural choice.

What does ben de mean here?

ben de means “I too / I, for my part.” The clitic de/da is written separately and does not become -te/-ta. Don’t confuse it with the locative suffix -de/-da (which attaches and can become -te/-ta). Compare:

ben de = “me too”
bende = “on me/with me” (locative), e.g., Para bende.

Does O mean “he” or “she”?

O is gender-neutral (“he/she/that person”). Turkish has no grammatical gender; the context supplies the gender if needed.

Is there a difference between uzadı and uzun sürdü?

Both can describe a meeting that went on longer than expected:

Toplantı uzadı = “the meeting got prolonged/ran over.”
Toplantı uzun sürdü = “the meeting lasted long.” They’re near-synonyms here; uzadı can hint more at exceeding the planned duration.

Could it be uzamış diye ısrar etti instead of uzadı?

You could say uzamış diye ısrar etti, but it adds the evidential -mış (“apparently/it seems/they say”), suggesting the speaker is reporting someone else’s claim or inference. uzadı is a plain past fact from the speaker’s perspective.