Metni kopyalayıp yeni dosyaya yapıştırınca biçim bozulmadı.

When I copied the text and pasted it into the new file, the formatting did not break.

Breakdown of Metni kopyalayıp yeni dosyaya yapıştırınca biçim bozulmadı.

• yeni: new
• metin: the text
• dosya: the file
• -ya: to
• bozulmak: to break down
• -ınca: when
• -ıp: and
• kopyalamak: to copy
• yapıştırmak: to paste
• biçim: the formatting

Questions & Answers about Metni kopyalayıp yeni dosyaya yapıştırınca biçim bozulmadı.

What’s the main-clause vs. subordinate-clause structure here?

• Subordinate time clause: Metni kopyalayıp yeni dosyaya yapıştırınca (“when [I/we] pasted the text into a new file after copying it”).
• Main clause: biçim bozulmadı (“the formatting didn’t get messed up”).
• The time clause sets the condition/time; the main clause states the result.

What does the suffix -ınca/-ince in yapıştırınca mean?

• -ınca/-ince/-unca/-ünce means “when/once/as soon as.”
• It creates an adverbial time clause: yapıştır-ınca = “when (one) pastes/pasted.”
• Vowel harmony picks the form: after the back unrounded vowel ı, you get -ınca.

Does the -ınca clause have to share the same subject as the main clause?

• No. The subject of an -ınca clause can be different from the main clause.
• Here, the implicit subject of “copy/paste” is contextually “I/we,” while the main clause subject is biçim (“format/formatting”).
• The listener infers the doer from context.

How does kopyalayıp work? Why use -ip?

• -ip links sequential actions with the same (implicit) subject: “copy and (then) …”
• kopyala-yıp = kopyala (copy) + buffer -y-
  • -ıp (and then).
• It attaches to the following verb (yapıştırınca) and shares its subject/time frame.

Why is it metni (accusative) and not just metin?

• The direct object is definite/specific (“the text”), so it takes the accusative -i: metin → metni.
• If it were indefinite (“some text”), you would normally leave it bare: metin kopyalayıp… (though lowercase “metin” avoids confusion with the name “Metin”).

Why is it yeni dosyaya and not yeni dosyada?

• -a/-e (dative) marks direction/goal: “to/into a new file” → dosya-ya.
• -da/-de (locative) would mean “in a new file,” which doesn’t fit “paste into.”

What’s the purpose of the buffer consonant -y- in kopyalayıp and dosyaya?

• When a suffix beginning with a vowel follows a stem ending with a vowel, Turkish inserts -y- to prevent two vowels from clashing:
  • kopyala + ıp → kopyala-yıp
  • dosya + a → dosya-ya

What exactly does bozulmadı express, morphologically and aspectually?

• bozul-ma-dı = “get ruined/break down” + negative -ma
  • past -dı → “didn’t get messed up.”
• It’s intransitive (from bozulmak, the inchoative of bozmak “to spoil/ruin”).
• Simple past, factual; not habitual.

Could I say değişmedi instead of bozulmadı?

• değişmedi = “didn’t change” (neutral).
• bozulmadı implies “didn’t get corrupted/broken/ruined,” which fits formatting issues better.
• Use bozulmadı to emphasize “no corruption,” not just “no change.”

Why no explicit subject like “I” or “we”?

• Turkish is pro-drop: subjects are often omitted when clear from context.
• The -ınca clause doesn’t mark person; the main clause has a third-person subject (biçim). The doer of “copy/paste” is pragmatically understood (often “I/we”).

Can I say yeni bir dosyaya instead of yeni dosyaya?

• Yes. yeni bir dosyaya explicitly marks indefiniteness (“into a new file”).
• yeni dosyaya is also fine; it can still mean “into a new file,” with “bir” optional unless you need to stress “one.”

Could I use yapıştırdığımda instead of yapıştırınca?

• yapıştırdığımda = “when I pasted” (explicit 1st-person possessive/nominalized time clause).
• yapıştırınca is more neutral and general (“when [one] pasted/when we pasted”).
• Both are correct; choose based on whether you want to specify the subject.

Why not say kopyaladım ve yapıştırınca?

• Mixing a finite past verb (kopyaladım) with an -ınca clause is awkward.
• Keep them parallel: either
  • Metni kopyalayıp yeni dosyaya yapıştırınca… or
  • Metni kopyaladım ve yeni dosyaya yapıştırdığımda…

Is the object “metni” shared by both “copy” and “paste,” or should I repeat it?

• It’s shared. Metni kopyalayıp … yapıştırınca naturally applies the same object to both verbs.
• Repeating it would be redundant unless you changed the object of the second verb.

Could I say Metnin biçimi bozulmadı or biçimi bozulmadı?

• Biçim bozulmadı: “the formatting didn’t get messed up” (generic subject).
• Metnin biçimi bozulmadı: “the text’s formatting didn’t get messed up” (explicit possessor).
• Biçimi bozulmadı needs a clear antecedent (“its formatting didn’t get messed up”).

Can I replace biçim with format?

• Yes: Format bozulmadı is idiomatic in tech contexts.
• If you use a possessive: formatı bozulmadı = “its format didn’t get messed up.”

Does -ınca here mean “whenever,” “when,” or “as soon as”?

• Context decides:
  • Single past event → “when/as soon as.”
  • Habitual/general statement → can read as “whenever.”
• For an explicit habitual sense, -dıkça (e.g., yapıştırdıkça) means “as/whenever (repeatedly).”

Can I change the word order?

• Yes. Variants like:
  • Metni yeni dosyaya kopyalayıp yapıştırınca, biçim bozulmadı.
  • Metni kopyalayıp yapıştırınca yeni dosyada biçim bozulmadı (less common; be careful with case).
• Keep case markers correct; Turkish allows flexibility but prefers clarity.

Quick full breakdown of the original sentence?

• Metni = metin + (acc) -i → “the text” (definite object)
• kopyala-yıp = copy + linker -ip (buffer y) → “copying (and then)”
• yeni dosya-ya = new file + (to) -a (buffer y) → “into a new file”
• yapıştır-ınca = paste + when → “when (we) pasted”
• biçim = “format/formatting” (subject)
• bozul-ma-dı = get-ruined + neg + past → “didn’t get messed up”