Learn Hardcore Turkish: Cüzdanı bulamasak da kimlik kartının fotoğrafını çekmiştik. - Even if we couldn’t find the wallet, we had taken a photo of the ID card.

A subordinate concessive clause (the “even if / although” part):
Cüzdanı bulamasak da – Even if we can’t find the wallet / Even though we didn’t find the wallet
The main clause (the real information):
kimlik kartının fotoğrafını çekmiştik – we had taken a photo of the ID card

So structurally:

Subordinate clause (condition/concession): Cüzdanı bulamasak da
Main clause (what actually happened): kimlik kartının fotoğrafını çekmiştik

What does -sak da in bulamasak da mean exactly?

-sak here is the 1st person plural form of the conditional suffix -sa/-se (if).
da is a conjunction meaning though / even if / even though.

So:

bulama- – cannot find / fail to find
-sak – if we
da – even though / even if

Together, bulamasak da ≈ even if we can’t find it / even though we don’t find it.

Pattern to remember:

gelirsek – if we come
gelirsek de – even if we come / although we come
bulamasak – if we can’t find (it)
bulamasak da – even if we can’t find (it)

Why is bulamasak used instead of a simple past like bulamadık?

Bulamasak is conditional, not simple past:

bulamadık – we didn’t find it (a fact about the past)
bulamasak – if we don’t / can’t find it (a hypothetical or open possibility)

With da:

Cüzdanı bulamadık da… sounds like: We didn’t find the wallet, but… (two past facts contrasted)
Cüzdanı bulamasak da… = Even if we can’t / don’t find the wallet, … (the main point will still hold)

So bulamasak da presents not finding the wallet as a condition/concession, not as a simple statement of fact.

How is bulamasak formed morphologically?

You can break bulamasak down as:

bul- – find
-ama- – cannot / be unable to (negative potential)
-sak – if we (conditional -sa
- 1st person plural -k)

So:

bul-ama-sak → if we cannot find (it)

In dictionary form you often see bulamamak (to be unable to find / to fail to find).
Conjugation:

bulamamak – to be unable to find
bulama- – stem
bulamasak – if we are/should be unable to find (it)

What tense/aspect is çekmiştik, and why is -mişti- used instead of a simple past like çektik?

Çekmiştik is past perfect / pluperfect: we had taken.

çektik – simple past: we took
çekmiştik – past perfect: we had taken (earlier, before another past moment)

Here çekmiştik indicates that the photo was already taken before the (possible) situation of not finding the wallet. It places the photo-taking earlier in the past relative to some other past time that’s in the speaker’s mind.

So the idea is:

Even if (later) we couldn’t find the wallet,
By that time, we had already taken a photo of the ID card (çekmiştik).

Can you break down çekmiştik into its parts?

Yes. Çekmiştik = çek-miş-ti-k

çek- – root: pull / shoot / take (a photo)
-miş – past participle / “evidential” past marker
-ti – past tense of to be
-k – 1st person plural we

Step by step:

çekmiş – (someone) has taken / had taken (as a participle-like form)
çekmişti – he/she/it had taken
çekmiştik – we had taken

In practice, -mişti- here functions as the past perfect marker rather than strongly “reported” past.

Why is cüzdanı in the accusative (-ı) here?

In Turkish, a specific / definite direct object usually takes the accusative ending -(y)i / -(y)ı / -(y)u / -(y)ü.

cüzdan – a wallet (unspecified)
cüzdanı – the wallet / that wallet (a specific one you both know about)

Because we’re talking about a particular wallet (the one that is lost), it is marked with accusative:

Cüzdanı bulamasak da… – Even if we can’t find *the wallet…*

If you said cüzdan bulamasak, it would sound more like if we can’t find *any wallet*, which doesn’t fit the usual context.

What does kimlik kartının fotoğrafını literally mean, and why are there two -ın/-ı endings?

Literally, kimlik kartının fotoğrafını means “the photo of the ID card” (as an object).

Morphologically:

kimlik kartı – ID card
kimlik kartı-nın – of the ID card (genitive)
fotoğraf – photo
fotoğraf-ı – its photo (possessive: the photo of it)
fotoğraf-ı-nı – its photo + accusative (as the direct object)

So:

kimlik kartı-nın fotoğraf-ı-nı
= of the ID card + its photo + (object)
= the photo of the ID card (as the thing we took)

The two endings have different roles:

-nın on kimlik kartı → genitive (of the ID card)
First -ı on fotoğrafı → possessive (its photo)
Second -nı on fotoğrafını → accusative (the photo as direct object)

Why is it kimlik kartının fotoğrafını çekmek (“to take a photo of the ID card”) and not just kimlik kartını çekmek?

Turkish normally expresses “take a photo of X” as:

X’in fotoğrafını çekmek – to take a photo of X

So:

kimlik kartının fotoğrafını çekmek – to take a photo of the ID card
kedinin fotoğrafını çekmek – to take a photo of the cat
evin fotoğrafını çekmek – to take a photo of the house

If you say kimlik kartını çektik, it literally means we pulled / we shot the ID card and only in very specific contexts might it be understood as we photographed the ID card. The natural, idiomatic way is to make fotoğraf the direct object and mark the owner with genitive:

bir şeyin fotoğrafını çekmek – to photograph something

What is the function of da here? Is it the same da that means also / too?

The da here is a conjunction meaning roughly though / even though / even if:

bulamasak da – even if we can’t find (it)

This use is closely linked to conditional + da:

gelsek de – even if we come
yapsa da – even if he does it
bulamasak da – even if we can’t find it

There is also da/de meaning also / too, but that attaches to a different part of the sentence and changes the meaning:

Kimlik kartının fotoğrafını da çekmiştik.
→ We had also taken a photo of the ID card. (in addition to something else)

Here, because da follows bulamasak, it clearly belongs to the concessive structure …sa da = even if / although, not the also/too meaning.

Why is there no subject pronoun like biz in the sentence?

Turkish is a pro‑drop language: subject pronouns are usually omitted because the person and number are shown on the verb.

In this sentence:

bulama-sak – the -sak already means “if we …”
çekmiş-ti-k – the -k already means “we (had)”

So biz is not needed:

Cüzdanı bulamasak da kimlik kartının fotoğrafını çekmiştik. – perfectly normal
Biz cüzdanı bulamasak da kimlik kartının fotoğrafını çekmiştik. – also correct, but biz is now emphatic (we, as opposed to someone else).

Could the word order be changed, for example by putting the main clause first?

Yes, you can change the order:

Kimlik kartının fotoğrafını çekmiştik, cüzdanı bulamasak da.

This is still grammatical. The meaning is basically the same, though the default and most natural order in Turkish is:

[Subordinate clause] + [Main clause]
Cüzdanı bulamasak da, kimlik kartının fotoğrafını çekmiştik.

Putting the main clause first can add a bit of emphasis to the fact that you had taken the photo, and then you add the even if we can’t find the wallet part as an afterthought.

Could we say Cüzdanı bulmasak da… instead of bulamasak da? What difference would that make?

Both are possible, but there is a nuance:

bulmasak – if we don’t find (it) (simple non-happening)
bulamasak – if we can’t manage to find (it) / if we are unable to find (it)

So:

Cüzdanı bulmasak da… – Even if we don’t find the wallet, …
Cüzdanı bulamasak da… – Even if we can’t (manage to) find the wallet, …

In many everyday contexts, speakers use them almost interchangeably, and the difference is subtle. Bulamasak tends to suggest effort or ability more strongly (even if we fail to find it).

Can we replace da with bile: Cüzdanı bulamasak bile…? Is there any difference?

Yes, you can say:

Cüzdanı bulamasak bile kimlik kartının fotoğrafını çekmiştik.

The structure …sa bile also means even if / even though, but bile often adds a slightly stronger “even” / “surprisingly even” feel.

Rough difference:

… bulamasak da … – even if we can’t find it (neutral concessive)
… bulamasak bile … – even if we can’t find it (with extra emphasis on how strong that concession is)

In most everyday speech, both are acceptable; …sa bile can sound a touch more emphatic or formal in some contexts.