Learn Hardcore Turkish: Saatin geç olduğunu unutma; yarın erken kalkman gerektiğini hatırla. - Don’t forget that it is late; remember that you need to get up early tomorrow.

In Turkish, when you turn a sentence into a noun clause (like “that it’s late”), the subject of that clause usually takes the genitive ending:

Saat geç. → “It is late.” (normal sentence)
Saatin geç olduğu… → “that the time is late…” (noun clause)

So saatin here is not “your clock” (which is also spelled saatin as a possessive); it’s “of the time”, i.e. “the time’s”.

You can tell it’s genitive (not “your X”) because it’s followed by a predicate (geç olduğunu) forming a clause, not by a simple noun.

What does geç olduğunu literally mean, and why do we need ol- there?

Base sentence:

Saat geç. = “(The) time is late.”

To turn this into a noun phrase “that it is late”, Turkish does this:

Insert olmak (“to be”) as a helper when the predicate is an adjective/adverb:
- geç ol- = “to be late”
Add the nominalizing suffix -DIK (here as -duğ-) plus 3rd person possessive:
- geç ol-duğ-u = “its being late”
Add accusative -(n)I because this whole clause is now the object of unutma:
- geç ol-duğ-u-nu = geç olduğunu = “that it is late”

So geç olduğunu literally = “its being late” → “that it is late”.

You can’t just say geçünü or something short; you need olmak + -DIK to make a proper noun clause from an adjectival predicate like geç.

How is olduğunu formed exactly? Why does it look like a past tense (-du)?

Breakdown of olduğunu:

ol- = “to be, to become”
-duk/-dık/-düğ/-diğ = -DIK nominalizer (turns a verb into “the fact that … / the thing that …”)
-u = 3rd person singular possessive
-(n)u = accusative case

So:

ol-duğ-u = “its being”
ol-duğ-u-nu → olduğunu = “its being (something)” as a direct object

Even though it contains -duğ-, this is not past tense here. It is the -DIK nominalizer, which often happens to look like past tense endings. Context tells you it’s “that it is late”, not “that it was late”.

Why do olduğunu and gerektiğini end in -nu / -ni? What is that ending?

The final -nı / -ni / -nu / -nü is the accusative case marker -(n)I.

olduğunu = ol-duğ-u-nu
- “its being (something)” + -nu = direct object
gerektiğini = gerek-tiğ-i-ni
- “its being necessary” + -ni = direct object

Verbs like unutmak (to forget) and hatırlamak (to remember) take a direct object. When that object is an entire clause, that clause is nominalized and then put in the accusative:

Saatin geç olduğunu unutma.
→ “Don’t forget (the fact) that it is late.”
… kalkman gerektiğini hatırla.
→ “Remember (the fact) that you need to get up.”

So -nı/-ni/-nu/-nü here just marks “this whole clause is the object of the verb”.

How does yarın erken kalkman gerektiğini mean “you need to get up early tomorrow”?

Breakdown:

yarın = tomorrow
erken = early
kalk- = to get up
kalk-ma-n = “your getting up” / “that you get up”
- -ma: verbal noun ending (like “getting up”)
- -n: 2nd person singular possessive: “your”
gerektiğ-i = “its being necessary”
- from gerekmek = “to be necessary”
- gerek-tiğ-i = “its being necessary”
gerektiğ-i-ni → gerektiğini = “that it is necessary” (accusative)

Put together:

yarın erken kalkman gerektiğini
= “that your getting up early tomorrow is necessary”
→ naturally: “that you need to get up early tomorrow”.

The structure is literally:

[Your getting up early tomorrow] [is necessary].

Why kalkman and not kalkmak in kalkman gerektiğini?

Both patterns exist but have slightly different structures:

kalkmak gerek / kalkmak gerekiyor
- Uses the infinitive:
- “It is necessary to get up.”
kalkman gerek / kalkman gerektiğini…
- Uses a verbal noun + possessive:
- “Your getting up is necessary” → “you need to get up.”

In kalkman:

kalk- = to get up
-ma = verbal noun (“getting up”)
-n = “your”

Because the sentence is about you specifically (“you need to get up”), Turkish often prefers kalkman.
kalkmak gerektiğini is also understandable, but kalkman gerektiğini directly encodes the subject (“your getting up”) inside the phrase.

What does gerektiğini come from, and why does it look like a past form?

Base verb:

gerekmek = “to be necessary”

Nominalized form:

gerek-tiğ-i = “its being necessary”
- -tiğ- is again the -DIK nominalizer (allomorph of -dik/-duk/-dük etc.)

Accusative:

gerek-tiğ-i-ni → gerektiğini = “(the fact) that it is necessary”

As with olduğunu, the -tiğ- part is the -DIK nominalizer, not the past tense. The overall meaning is present/future:

kalkman gerektiğini hatırla
= “remember that you need to get up” (now / in the future),
not “remember that you needed to get up (in the past)”.

Why is the semicolon (;) used between unutma and hatırla? Could we use something else?

The semicolon here separates two closely related imperatives:

Saatin geç olduğunu unutma;
“Don’t forget that it’s late;”
yarın erken kalkman gerektiğini hatırla.
“remember that you need to get up early tomorrow.”

You could also write:

Saatin geç olduğunu unutma, yarın erken kalkman gerektiğini hatırla.
(comma – also very common)
Or even split them:
- Saatin geç olduğunu unutma. Yarın erken kalkman gerektiğini hatırla.

The meaning is the same; the semicolon just emphasizes that the two commands are equally important but closely linked.

What is the difference between unutma and hatırla in terms of form and meaning?

Both are imperatives (commands) addressed to “sen” (you, singular/informal):

unutma = “don’t forget”
- from unutmak = to forget
- negative imperative: unut-ma (don’t forget)
hatırla = “remember”
- from hatırlamak = to remember
- regular imperative stem: hatırla (remember)

So the sentence uses:

a negative command: “don’t forget that it’s late”
a positive command: “remember that you need to get up early”

More formal / plural forms would be:

unutmayın – “don’t forget” (you-plural / polite)
hatırlayın – “remember” (you-plural / polite)

Can the word order in yarın erken kalkman gerektiğini be changed?

Yes, Turkish word order inside such phrases is fairly flexible, as long as the relationships stay clear. All of these are acceptable:

yarın erken kalkman gerektiğini hatırla.
yarın kalkman erken gerektiğini hatırla. (less natural)
erken yarın kalkman gerektiğini hatırla. (odd; “yarın” usually stays before or after the verb phrase)

Most natural is to keep the time and manner adverbs near the verb:

yarın erken kalkman gerektiğini hatırla.
or erken yarın kalkman gerektiğini hatırla is grammatically possible but sounds a bit marked.

The key thing is that kalkman stays close to gerektiğini, because together they form “your getting up being necessary”.

Could we say this sentence using zorunda or lazım instead of gerekmek?

Yes, there are natural alternatives:

With zorunda (“obliged / have to”):
- Saatin geç olduğunu unutma; yarın erken kalkmak zorunda olduğunu hatırla.
- or more commonly:
  - … yarın erken kalkmak zorunda olduğunu unutma.
With lazım (“necessary / needed”):
- Saatin geç olduğunu unutma; yarın erken kalkman gerektiğini
  → yarın erken kalkman gerektiğini / lazım olduğunu (mixed is possible but stylistically you’d usually pick one)
- A cleaner version:
  - Saatin geç olduğunu unutma; yarın erken kalkman gerektiğini/lazım olduğunu aklında tut.

A simpler, common pattern with lazım:

Saatin geç olduğunu unutma; yarın erken kalkman lazım.

So gerek / lazım / zorunda are all ways of expressing necessity, with small nuance differences, but all could convey “you need to get up early”.

Why do olduğunu and gerektiğini use a form that looks like past (-du/-ti), even though the meaning is present/future?

This is a common confusion. The key point:

The suffix you see as -duğ- / -tiğ- is not the past tense here.
It is the -DIK nominalizer, which just happens to share the -d- / -t- shape with the past tense.

Compare:

Past tense: geldi = “(he) came”
Nominalizer: geldiği = “the fact that (he) came / where he comes”

In olduğunu, gerektiğini:

ol-duğ-u-nu = the fact of its being
gerek-tiğ-i-ni = the fact of its being necessary

The time reference (present, past, future) is supplied by context or by other markers (like geleceğini, olacağını, etc.), not by the -DIK nominalizer itself. Here, because it’s about “now / tomorrow”, the meaning is “that it is late” and “that you need to get up”, not past.