Toplantı odasında kimsenin konuşmadığını gördüm.

I saw that nobody was speaking in the meeting room.

Breakdown of Toplantı odasında kimsenin konuşmadığını gördüm.

• konuşmak: to speak
• görmek: to see
• kimse: nobody
• -nda: in
• toplantı odası: the meeting room

Questions & Answers about Toplantı odasında kimsenin konuşmadığını gördüm.

What is the word‑by‑word breakdown of Toplantı odasında kimsenin konuşmadığını gördüm?

Here is a rough breakdown:

• Toplantı – meeting
• odası – room (literally “its room”; oda = room, -sı = 3rd person possessive)

• oda-sı-nda → odasında – “in the room” (-nda = locative case “in/at/on”)

  • So Toplantı odasında = “in the meeting room”
• kimse – anyone / anybody; in negative contexts it means “nobody”

• kimse-nin → kimsenin – “of nobody” (genitive case, “nobody’s” / “of no one”)

• konuş- – to speak, to talk
• -ma- – negative marker (“not”)
• -dı – past tense marker (“did” / “was” in this context)
• -ğ- – buffer consonant (to join two vowels smoothly)
• -ı – 3rd person singular possessive (“his/her/its” – here: “(their) not speaking”)
• -nı – accusative case ending, marking the whole thing as the object of gördüm

So konuş-ma-dı-ğ-ı-nı → konuşmadığını ≈ “(the fact) that (they) were not speaking / did not speak”.

• gör-dü-m → gördüm
  • gör- – to see
  • -dü – past tense
  • -m – 1st person singular (“I”)

Altogether: “In the meeting room, I saw (the fact) that nobody was speaking.”

Why is it Toplantı odasında and not just Toplantı oda?

Several things are happening:

1. Compound noun:

   • toplantı = meeting
   • oda = room
     Together they form a compound: toplantı odası = “meeting room”.

2. Possessive link inside the compound:

   • In many Turkish noun–noun compounds, the second noun gets a 3rd person possessive ending:
     • toplantı odası (meeting room)
     • yemek odası (dining room)
     • oturma odası (living room)

   So oda becomes odası.

3. Locative case (“in/at/on”):

   • The locative suffix is -da / -de, but after a vowel + possessive it appears as -nda / -nde:
     • oda
       • -sı (3rd poss) + -nda (locative) → odasında = “in the room”

So Toplantı odasında literally is “in the room of the meeting” → “in the meeting room”.

Why is it kimsenin and not just kimse?

Because of the structure of Turkish complement clauses of this type:

Pattern:

• [subject in genitive] + [verb + tense + 3rd person possessive]

In our sentence:

• kimsenin – “of nobody” = genitive form of kimse
• konuşmadığı – “his/her/their not speaking” / “the fact that (they) didn’t speak”

Together, kimsenin konuşmadığı literally means “the fact of nobody’s not speaking”, i.e., “the fact that nobody was speaking”.

So kimse must be in the genitive (kimsenin) because it is the “possessor” of the action in this noun‑like clause. The possessive on the verb (-ı in konuşmadığı) and the genitive on kimse go together as a pair:

• onun gel-diğ-i – “his/her coming” / “the fact that he/she came”
• öğrencilerin çalış-tığ-ı – “the students’ working”
• kimsenin konuş-ma-dı-ğ-ı – “nobody’s not speaking” → “that nobody was speaking”

What exactly is kimse, and why does it mean “nobody” here?

Kimse is an indefinite pronoun that behaves like “anyone / anybody”.
Its meaning depends on the polarity of the sentence:

• In negative or question contexts, kimse ≈ “nobody / no one”:

  • Kimse gelmedi. – Nobody came.
  • Kimseyi gördün mü? – Did you see anyone?

• In fully positive statements, it tends to mean “anyone (at all)”:

  • Kimse yardım edebilir. – Anyone can help.

In your sentence, the clause is negative because the verb is negated (konuşma-). That creates a negative environment, so:

• kimsenin konuşmadığı = “that nobody was speaking” (not “that anyone was speaking”).

The negative meaning comes from the verb’s negative suffix (-ma-), not from kimse itself. Kimse is just the pronoun that appears in that negative environment and ends up being interpreted as “nobody”.

Can you break down konuşmadığını more slowly? It looks very long.

Yes. Step by step:

1. konuş- – verb stem “speak, talk”
2. -ma- – negative suffix → konuşma- = “not speak”
3. -dı – simple past tense → konuşmadı = “he/she/they did not speak”
4. -ğ- – buffer consonant (used when adding a vowel‑starting suffix after a vowel)
5. -ı – 3rd person singular possessive → konuşmadığı
   Literally “his/her/its not speaking” or “the fact that he/she/they didn’t speak”
6. -nı – accusative case ending → konuşmadığını
   “(the fact) that he/she/they didn’t speak” as the object of another verb

So kimsenin konuşmadığını gördüm is structurally “I saw [nobody’s not‑speaking]” → “I saw that nobody was speaking.”

What is that -ğ- doing in konuşmadığını?

The -ğ- is a buffer consonant (also called a glide or liaison consonant).

• We have konuşmadı ending in the vowel -ı.
• Then we attach the 3rd person possessive suffix -ı.

• Two vowels don’t usually stand directly next to each other in Turkish spelling, so we insert -ğ-:

  • konuşmadı-ı → konuşmadığı

You see the same pattern in other words:

• gel-di (he came) + -i (3rd poss) → geldiği
• yap-tı (he did) + -ı → yaptığı
• okudu (he read) + -u → okuduğu

So -ğ- here has no meaning by itself; it’s just there to make pronunciation and spelling smooth.

Why are there two endings -ı and -nı at the end of konuşmadığını?

They are different endings with different functions:

1. -ı (before -nı) – 3rd person singular possessive

   • Turns the verb phrase into a noun‑like thing:
     konuşmadığı ≈ “his/her not speaking” / “the fact that he/she didn’t speak”

2. -nı – accusative case ending

   • Marks this noun‑like clause as the direct object of gördüm:
     • konuşmadığını gördüm – “I saw (it) that he/she/they was/were not speaking.”

So the last part is:

• konuşma-dı-ğ-ı – “his/her not speaking”
• konuşma-dı-ğ-ı-nı – “(his/her not speaking)” as object of “I saw”

Why is there no separate word for “that”, as in “I saw that nobody was speaking”?

English uses a separate conjunction “that” to introduce content clauses.
Turkish usually does not. Instead, Turkish:

1. Changes the verb into a noun‑like form with tense + possessive:

   • konuşmadığı – “(his/her) not speaking” / “the fact that (he/she) didn’t speak”

2. Puts the subject of this mini‑clause in the genitive:

   • kimsenin konuşmadığı – “nobody’s not speaking” → “that nobody was speaking”

3. Uses this whole group as a noun phrase (here, as the direct object of gördüm).

So the function carried by English “that” is expressed in Turkish through:

• genitive on the subject (kimsenin)
• • possessive on the verb (konuşmadığı)
• (optionally plus case, here accusative -nı)

No extra conjunction is needed.

Why does the embedded verb look past (konuşma-dı-ğ-ı) but the English translation is more like “was not speaking”?

Turkish -dı is a simple past marker, but its aspect is flexible. In a sentence like this:

• kimsenin konuşmadığını gördüm

the main verb gördüm is past (“I saw”), and the embedded past konuşmadı- is usually understood as describing the state at that time. In English this is naturally translated with a past continuous:

• “I saw that nobody was speaking.”

You could also translate it as:

• “I saw that nobody spoke (at that time).”

Turkish doesn’t always distinguish sharply between “did not speak” and “was not speaking” in the same way English does; context decides the more natural English rendering. The important point is: the action/state of not speaking is located before/at the time of your seeing, hence past marker -dı.

Why is the verb form singular (konuşmadığını) even though “nobody” might refer to many people?

In Turkish, kimse is grammatically singular, even though semantically it can refer to more than one person. Therefore, the verb and the possessive agreement are also singular:

• kimse – singular pronoun
• kimsenin konuşmadığı – literally “nobody’s not speaking” (singular agreement)

If you used a clearly plural subject, the embedded verb would normally agree in plural too:

• öğrencilerin konuşmadığını gördüm. – “I saw that the students were not speaking.”
  (Here plural subject, but often still 3rd singular in the embedded verb in everyday usage; Turkish allows singular agreement even with plural subjects in such clauses.)
• More explicit plural (colloquial and slightly heavier):
  öğrencilerin konuşmadıklarını gördüm.

With kimse, singular agreement (konuşmadığı) is the normal, natural choice.

Could I say this in a more “finite clause” way, without that long embedded form?

Yes. You could express the same idea with two separate clauses, for example:

• Toplantı odasında kimse konuşmuyordu. Ben de bunu gördüm.
  “Nobody was speaking in the meeting room. And I saw this.”

Or:

• Toplantı odasında kimse konuşmuyordu; bunu gördüm.

The original sentence:

• Toplantı odasında kimsenin konuşmadığını gördüm.

packs everything into a single sentence by making “that nobody was speaking” into a noun‑like object clause. Both styles are correct; the embedded version is more compact and typical in written or slightly more formal speech, while the two‑clause version is very natural in everyday conversation.