Learn Hardcore Turkish: Ayşe takvim girişi eklediğini, Melis de dosya eki gönderdiğini iletti. - Ayşe conveyed that she added a calendar entry, and Melis said that she sent the attachment.

Ayşe takvim girişi eklediğini, Melis de dosya eki gönderdiğini iletti.

Ayşe conveyed that she added a calendar entry, and Melis said that she sent the attachment.

Elon.io is an online learning platform

We have an entire course teaching Turkish grammar and vocabulary.

Questions & Answers about Ayşe takvim girişi eklediğini, Melis de dosya eki gönderdiğini iletti.

Who is actually doing the reporting here—Ayşe and Melis themselves, or some third person about them?

As written, the default reading is that Ayşe and Melis themselves reported things: the final verb iletti is shared across both subjects (i.e., “Ayşe … iletti, Melis de … iletti”). If you wanted “Someone else conveyed that Ayşe added … and that Melis sent …,” you would mark Ayşe and Melis as the subjects of the embedded clauses with genitive:

Ayşe’nin takvim girişi eklediğini, Melis’in de dosya eki gönderdiğini iletti.

Why is the verb iletti singular even though there are two people (Ayşe and Melis)? Shouldn’t it be ilettiler?

Turkish often allows third-person singular agreement with coordinated subjects, especially in writing and when a single final verb is shared. İletti is fine here. You could also say ilettiler for explicit plural agreement; both are acceptable.

What exactly does the ending in eklediğini and gönderdiğini mean?

They are nominalized content clauses (“that s/he added/sent”) formed with -DIK plus possessive and case:

ekle-diğ-i-ni = ekle- (add) + -DIK (nominalizer; here -diğ-) + 3SG.POSS -i + ACC -(n)i → “that s/he added”
gönder-diğ-i-ni = gönder- (send) + -DIK + 3SG.POSS + ACC → “that s/he sent”

The whole clause functions as the direct object of iletti (“conveyed/reported (that) …”).

Why do those forms end in -ni?

Because the entire embedded clause is in the accusative as the direct object of iletti. The -n- is a buffer between the possessive -i and the accusative -i: -i + (n) + i → -ini.

Why don’t we see Ayşe’nin or Melis’in before the embedded verbs?

In -DIK clauses, the embedded subject is marked with genitive when it is different from the matrix (main clause) subject. Here, Ayşe and Melis are the matrix subjects, and each embedded clause is understood to have the same subject as its own matrix subject, so no genitive is needed. If a third person did the reporting, you would use genitive: Ayşe’nin … eklediğini, Melis’in … gönderdiğini iletti.

Which person does the -DIK form encode? Could it be “that I added,” “that we sent,” etc.?

Yes. The possessive on -DIK shows the subject of the embedded clause:

eklediğim(i) = that I added
eklediğin(i) = that you (sg) added
eklediği(ni) = that he/she added
eklediğimiz(i) = that we added
eklediğiniz(i) = that you (pl) added
ekledikleri(ni) = that they added Add -(n)i when the whole clause is a direct object (as here).

How is tense handled in these embedded clauses? Does -DIK mean past?

With communication/cognition verbs, -DIK typically gives a past/perfect reading relative to the reporting: “that s/he added/sent.” For other times:

Future: ekleyeceğini / göndereceğini (that s/he will add/send)
Present/progressive: eklediğini doesn’t express ongoing action; use ekliyor olduğunu / göndermekte olduğunu (that s/he is adding/sending)

What does de in Melis de do, and where can it go?

de/da is the clitic meaning also/too. It attaches (with a space) to the element it focuses:

Melis de = “Melis too (as well as Ayşe)”
dosya ekini de = “the file attachment too (in addition to something else)” It obeys vowel harmony (de/da) but never turns into te/ta (that change belongs to the locative suffix, not this clitic).

Is the comma basically acting like “and”? Could I use ve instead?

Yes—the comma plus de yields an additive/and-like coordination. You could write a fuller version with ve if you prefer, e.g., “Ayşe … eklediğini iletti ve Melis de … gönderdiğini iletti,” but the given style is concise and natural.

Why is it takvim girişi and dosya eki without accusative -i? Aren’t they objects?

They are objects inside the embedded clauses, but they are indefinite (a calendar entry, a file attachment), so they remain bare (no -i). If definite/specific, you would mark them:

takvim girişini eklediğini
dosya ekini gönderdiğini

Can I explicitly add bir to show “a/an”?

Yes:

Ayşe bir takvim girişi eklediğini …
Melis de bir dosya eki gönderdiğini …

What’s the nuance of iletti compared to söyledi, bildirdi, aktardı?

iletti: conveyed/relayed/forwarded (often via a channel, somewhat formal/neutral)
söyledi: said (most general)
bildirdi: informed/notified (formal, institutional)
aktardı: passed on/conveyed (emphasizes transmitting information)

Could I say this with ki or diye instead of -DIK?

Yes, but you typically switch the main verb:

ki: Ayşe dedi ki takvime bir giriş ekledi; Melis de dedi ki dosya eki gönderdi.
diye (quotative): Ayşe “takvime bir giriş ekledim” diye söyledi; Melis de “dosya eki gönderdim” diye söyledi. With iletmek, the -DIK complement (as in the original) is the most natural.

What are takvim girişi and dosya eki morphologically?

They’re indefinite possessive compounds (X Y-si):

takvim girişi = calendar entry (lit. “entry of calendar”)
dosya eki = file attachment (lit. “attachment of file”) The -i/-si here is possessive, not accusative. If you make them definite objects, you add another -i: girişini, ekini.

How do I pronounce the ğ in forms like eklediğini?

Turkish ğ (yumuşak g) is not a hard g; it lengthens or glides the preceding vowel. So -diğini is pronounced roughly like “dii-ni,” with a lengthened i.