Learn Hardcore Turkish: Dolmakalemin mürekkebi azalmış; kalemi temizleyip yeniden doldurdum. - The fountain pen’s ink was low; I cleaned the pen and refilled it.

dolmakalem-in = fountain pen + genitive “of the fountain pen”
mürekkep-(s)i = ink + 3rd person possessive “its ink” Together: “the fountain pen’s ink.”

Why does mürekkebi end with -i? Is that the accusative?

Here -i is the 3rd person possessive suffix, not the accusative. The subject is the whole phrase Dolmakalemin mürekkebi. If it were accusative, you’d see mürekkebini (possessive -i plus accusative -(n)i). Note the consonant softening: mürekkep → mürekkebi when a vowel-initial suffix is added (p → b).

Could dolmakalemin mean “your fountain pen”?

Alone, kalemin can mean either “of the pen” (genitive) or “your pen” (2sg possessive). In this chain, it’s genitive: “of the fountain pen.”
To say “your fountain pen’s ink,” you’d mark both possession and genitive: senin dolma kaleminin mürekkebi (note the double -in in kaleminin).

Why use azalmış instead of azaldı?

azalmış is the evidential/indirect past (-miş). It often implies discovery, inference, or a result you noticed: “turns out the ink had decreased/was low.”
azaldı is the direct past: “the ink decreased,” as a bare fact you witnessed.
Given that the second clause shows you acted after noticing, azalmış is the natural choice.

Would azalmıştı be more correct for “had decreased”?

Not necessary, but possible:

azalmış: background state you discovered at that time (discovery nuance).
azalmıştı: a past perfect, explicitly setting a state earlier than another past event.
Both work; azalmış is idiomatic here because of the “I noticed, then I…” flow.

Could I say mürekkebi bitmiş instead of mürekkebi azalmış?

bitmiş = “has run out / is finished” (no ink left).
azalmış = “has decreased / is low.”
Use bitmiş only if it’s empty.

Why is there a semicolon? Could I use a comma or a period?

The semicolon links two closely related independent clauses. Alternatives:

Period: … azalmış. Kalemi temizleyip …
Conjunction: … azalmış ve kalemi temizleyip …
Avoid just a comma between independent clauses in formal writing.

What does temizleyip do? Why not just temizledim?

The suffix -ip forms a converb that links actions with the same subject, often meaning “and (then)” or “after doing so.”

kalemi temizleyip yeniden doldurdum ≈ “I cleaned the pen and then refilled it.”
Buffer -y- appears because temizle- ends in a vowel: temizle + y + ip.

Is temizledim ve yeniden doldurdum equally correct?

Yes. Differences:

-ip is compact and suggests a tighter sequence.
ve is more neutral coordination.
Don’t use both: temizleyip ve is ungrammatical.
Also, temizleyerek doldurdum means “I refilled it by cleaning it,” which changes the meaning (manner/means).

Why is kalemi in the accusative?

Because it’s a specific, definite direct object (“the pen”), and Turkish marks definite objects with accusative -(y)i.
That object is understood for both verbs across -ip: you cleaned it and then refilled it.

Could I replace kalemi with onu?

Yes: Onu temizleyip yeniden doldurdum is fine if “it” is clear.
Keeping kalemi is natural here and avoids ambiguity (e.g., pen vs. converter). Using both (Kalemi onu…) would be redundant.

Isn’t kalemi also “his/her pen”? How do I know it’s not possessive here?

Formally, kalemi can be:

3rd person possessive “his/her pen,” or
accusative “the pen.”
Here it’s the accusative because there’s no possessor (e.g., onun kalemi) and it functions as the direct object of the verbs. If you meant “his/her pen,” you’d typically say onun kalemini.

What’s the difference between yeniden, tekrar, and bir daha?

yeniden = “again, anew,” often suggests doing from scratch or restoring a previous state; best with doldurmak for “refill.”
tekrar = “again/once more,” neutral repetition.
bir daha = “one more time/again,” more colloquial.
All can work, but yeniden doldurmak is the idiomatic collocation for “refill.”

Can I move yeniden around? Does its position change the meaning?

kalemi temizleyip yeniden doldurdum: “refilled it again” (scope on refilling).
yeniden kalemi temizleyip doldurdum: implies you cleaned it again and refilled it (scope widens).
kalemi temizleyip doldurdum yeniden: possible in speech; yeniden gets end-focus but still usually modifies “refilled.”
Place yeniden just before the verb you want it to modify.

Is dolmakalem one word or two (dolma kalem)?

Both spellings are seen. Many dictionaries and style guides list it as one word (dolmakalem) because it’s a lexicalized compound, but dolma kalem (two words) is also common in everyday writing. Use one style consistently.

Could I just say Mürekkep azalmış without the possessive chain?

You could, but it’s less specific (“the ink was low”). Dolmakalemin mürekkebi pins the ink to the pen. Without it, the sentence relies more on context for clarity.

Can the subject really have -i on it, like in mürekkebi?

Yes, because that -i is a possessive suffix, not case. Subjects can carry possessive marking in Turkish. Case would be visible elsewhere (e.g., accusative would be mürekkebini).

What’s the morphology of doldurdum?

Root: dol- “become full”
Causative: dol-dur- “make (something) full; fill”
Past: -du
1st singular: -m
So doldurdum = “I filled (it).” With yeniden, it’s “I refilled (it).”

Can you break down the whole sentence morphologically?

Dolmakalemin = dolmakalem (fountain pen) + -(n)in (genitive) → “of the fountain pen”
mürekkebi = mürekkep (ink) + -(s)i (3sg possessive) → “its ink”
azalmış = azal- (decrease) + -mış (evidential past) → “has decreased/was low (as discovered)”
kalemi = kalem (pen) + -(y)i (accusative) → “the pen” (definite object)
temizleyip = temizle- (clean) + buffer y
- -ip (converb) → “cleaning (and then)”
yeniden = again/anew
doldurdum = dol- (become full) + -dur (causative “fill”) + -du (past) + -m (1sg) → “I filled” (refilled)