Learn Hardcore Turkish: Konuşmacı gelmediği halde oturumu iptal etmedik. - Although the speaker did not come, we did not cancel the session.

In this structure, halde means although/even though. It requires a nominalized clause before it, so you don’t use a plain finite verb; you use a verbal noun phrase (like “his/her not coming”) + halde. Outside this use, halde can also mean “in this state/condition” (e.g., bu halde = “in this state”), but here it is concessive (“despite the fact that…”).

Why is it gelmediği and not just gelmedi?

Because halde must attach to a nominalized clause. Gelmedi is a finite verb (“didn’t come”), but with halde you need a verbal noun: gel-me-diğ-i = “his/her not coming.” Breakdown:

gel-: come
-me-: negation
-DIK: nominalizer (here surfacing as -diğ-)
-i: 3rd person possessive (agreement with the subject of the subordinate clause)

Who does the possessive -i in gelmediği refer to?

It marks agreement with the (understood) subject of the subordinate clause. Here it’s 3rd person singular (“the speaker”). If the subject changes, the possessive changes too:

Benim gelmediğ-im halde (although I didn’t come)
Sizin gelmediğ-iniz halde (although you [pl] didn’t come)
Konuşmacılar gelmediğ-leri halde (although the speakers didn’t come)

Where is the “we” in the sentence?

It’s encoded on the main verb etmedik:

et-: do
-me-: negation
-di-: past
-k: 1st person plural (“we”) Turkish doesn’t require an explicit pronoun when person/number is shown on the verb.

Should it be Konuşmacının gelmediği halde (genitive) instead of Konuşmacı gelmediği halde?

In careful/formal style, the subject of a -DIK nominalized clause is typically marked with genitive: Konuşmacının gelmediği halde. In everyday speech and much writing, the genitive is often dropped with concessive postpositions, so Konuşmacı gelmediği halde is very common and natural. Both are widely understood; the genitive version is more formal/explicit.

Can I use rağmen instead of halde?

Yes. With rağmen, you typically use the -mA nominalization plus dative:

Konuşmacı(nın) gelmemesin(e) rağmen oturumu iptal etmedik. Meaning and register are nearly the same. Many speakers find rağmen slightly more common in everyday usage, while halde can feel a touch more formal/literary.

What’s the difference between gelmediği halde and forms like gelmese de or gelmeyince?

gelmediği halde: concessive (“although”), factual about the past.
gelmese de / gelmese bile: “even if he doesn’t/didn’t come,” often hypothetical or less anchored in a specific past event.
gelmeyince: temporal/causal (“when/since he didn’t come”), not concessive; it suggests a consequence, not a contrast.

How is the ğ in gelmediği pronounced?

Turkish ğ (yumuşak g) is not a hard “g.” It lengthens or glides the preceding vowel. So gelmediği sounds like “gelmedi-ii,” with a smooth transition into the final -i. Don’t insert a hard consonant sound there.

Why is it oturumu with -u? What would change if it were oturum without -u?

The -u is the accusative, marking a definite direct object: oturumu = “the session.” Without accusative (oturum) the object is indefinite (“a session” in general). So:

Oturumu iptal etmedik = we didn’t cancel the (particular) session.
Oturum iptal etmedik = we didn’t cancel any session (more general/indefinite).

Why use iptal etmek? Can I say something like iptallemek or iptal yapmak?

The natural collocation is the light-verb compound iptal etmek (“to cancel”). Turkish often forms verbs this way with etmek. You don’t say iptallemek or iptal yapmak. Note the past forms: ettik (affirmative), etmedik (negative).

Is a comma needed after Konuşmacı gelmediği halde?

It’s optional. Many writers don’t use a comma before short adverbial clauses that directly precede the verb. You can insert one to signal a pause or emphasis, but it’s not required.

Can I move the concessive clause to the end?

Yes, for emphasis or style: Oturumu iptal etmedik, konuşmacı gelmediği halde. Initial position is more neutral and common, but placing it at the end is acceptable, especially in speech.

If the speaker is plural, how does the verb inside the concessive clause change?

You mark plural on the possessive agreement:

Konuşmacılar gelmedik-leri halde oturumu iptal etmedik. Here -leri is the 3rd person plural possessive agreement on the -DIK nominalization.

What does konuşmacı mean morphologically, and is it the same as a loudspeaker?

Konuş-ma-cı = “speaker (person)” from konuş- (speak) + -ma (verbal noun) + -cı (agent). It refers to a person who speaks (e.g., at a conference). A loudspeaker/device is hoparlör, not konuşmacı.

Could I paraphrase the sentence with two independent clauses using words like halbuki/oysa?

Yes, you can create a contrast with coordinating adverbs: Konuşmacı gelmedi; halbuki/oysa oturumu iptal etmedik. This is stylistically different: it uses two finite clauses and a contrastive connector rather than a concessive subclause, but the overall contrast is similar.