Learn Hardcore Turkish: Avukat, mahkemede sakin kalmam gerektiğini hatırlattı. - The lawyer reminded me that I should stay calm in court.

Avukat, mahkemede sakin kalmam gerektiğini hatırlattı.
→ The subject is short (Avukat), and the rest is long and complex, so many writers put a comma there.

Grammatically, the comma here is optional. You can also write:

Avukat mahkemede sakin kalmam gerektiğini hatırlattı.

Both are correct; the comma just marks a slight pause.

What does mahkemede mean exactly, and what is the role of -de?

Mahkemede = mahkeme + -de

mahkeme = court
-de / -da = locative case suffix, meaning in / at / on

So mahkemede literally means “in court / at the court.”

The form is -de, not -da, because of consonant harmony: mahkeme ends in a voiceless consonant (k), so -de fits (not -da).

Why is there no apostrophe in mahkemede? I’ve seen things like Türkiye’de with an apostrophe.

Apostrophes in Turkish are used:

after proper nouns (names of people, countries, cities, etc.) when adding case endings.
- Türkiye’de, Ankara’ya, Ali’yi

Mahkeme is a common noun, not a proper name, so:

mahkemede (no apostrophe) is correct.
mahkeme’de would be wrong.

What does sakin kalmam mean, and why is it kalmam and not kalmak?

Sakin kalmam is a nominalized verb phrase meaning roughly “my staying calm / that I stay calm.”

Breakdown:

sakin = calm
kal- = to stay / to remain
-ma = verbal noun suffix (“-ing” idea)
-m = 1st person singular possessive (my)

So:

kal-ma-m = my staying / that I stay
sakin kalmam = my staying calm / that I stay calm

We use kalmam instead of kalmak because:

kalmak is just the infinitive “to stay”.
Here we need a clause functioning as a noun: that I stay calm, with an explicit subject (I) shown by -m.
Turkish marks the subject inside the nominalized verb: kalmam (I stay), kalman (you stay), kalması (he/she stays), etc.

What is the function of gerektiğini here?

Gerektiğini comes from the verb gerekmek = to be necessary / to be required.

The phrase sakin kalmam gerektiğini literally means:

“that my staying calm was / is necessary.”

Functionally:

gerektiğini turns the idea “it was necessary” into a noun-like clause that can be the object of hatırlattı (reminded).

So the structure is:

[sakin kalmam gerektiğini] hatırlattı
→ (He/She) reminded (me) that I needed to stay calm.

Why does gerektiğini look “past” (with -ti) if the meaning is more like “should / need to”?

Turkish often uses the past-looking form inside such clauses even when English uses should / need to.

gerektiğini literally reflects something like “that it was necessary” at the time of speaking or advising.
In combinations like X gerektiğini hatırlattı / söyledi, English usually translates more naturally with “should / need to / have to”, not with a literal past.

So:

mahkemede sakin kalmam gerektiğini hatırlattı
→ literally: “reminded (me) that my staying calm in court was necessary”
→ natural English: “reminded me that I should stay calm in court.”

What exactly is inside gerektiğini morphologically?

In simplified terms, from gerekmek (“to be necessary”):

gerek- → root
-ti → past tense (3rd singular: “it was necessary” = gerekti)
-k / -ğ type element → part of the -DIK nominalizer family (here realized as -tiğ-)
-i → 3rd person singular possessive (“its being necessary”)
-(n)i → accusative case (because the whole clause is the object of hatırlattı)

Combined, gerektiğini means “that it was/is necessary” as the object of another verb.

Why does gerektiğini take the accusative ending -(n)i?

Because the entire clause sakin kalmam gerektiğini is the direct object of the verb hatırlattı (“reminded”).

In Turkish:

A finite “that” clause in English (e.g. “that I should stay calm”) is often expressed as a nominalized clause ending with -DIK (or other nominalizers) in Turkish.
When that clause is used as a direct object, it usually takes accusative.

So:

[sakin kalmam gerektiği] = “the fact that my staying calm is necessary” (subject-like phrase, nominative)
[sakin kalmam gerektiğini] hatırlattı = “(He/She) reminded (me) that I should stay calm.” (object; hence accusative -ni)

Where is the English word “that” in this sentence (“that I should stay calm”)?

There is no separate word for “that” in the Turkish sentence.

Instead, Turkish uses:

nominalization + case endings to do the job of English “that”.

The English that I should stay calm in court corresponds to the whole phrase:

mahkemede sakin kalmam gerektiğini

So the meaning of “that” is built into the structure (especially the -mam and -DIK + acc parts), not expressed as a separate word.

Why is the English translation “reminded me” if bana (“to me”) doesn’t appear in the Turkish sentence?

In Turkish, the indirect object (the person being reminded) is often omitted when it’s clear from context.

hatırlatmak = to remind someone of something / that something is the case.

The full form could be:

Avukat bana mahkemede sakin kalmam gerektiğini hatırlattı.
→ The lawyer reminded me that I should stay calm in court.

In your sentence, bana is simply left out because:

context usually makes it clear that the lawyer is speaking to me, and
the focus is on what was reminded (the clause) rather than on the person.

Can I say Avukat bana mahkemede sakin kalmam gerektiğini hatırlattı? Where should bana go?

Yes, that’s perfectly correct and very natural.

Typical placements:

Avukat bana mahkemede sakin kalmam gerektiğini hatırlattı.
Avukat mahkemede bana sakin kalmam gerektiğini hatırlattı.

Both are fine. The most neutral is probably:

Avukat bana mahkemede sakin kalmam gerektiğini hatırlattı.

In Turkish, pronouns like bana (to me) usually come before the main verb, often toward the end of the sentence but before the final verb form.

Why not just say sakin kalmamı hatırlattı instead of sakin kalmam gerektiğini hatırlattı?

Sakin kalmamı hatırlattı is not natural or idiomatic Turkish for “reminded me to stay calm.”

hatırlatmak means “to remind (someone) of something (they already know).”
sakin kalmamı would more literally be “my staying calm” as a thing, but without the idea of necessity / obligation.

To say “reminded me that I should stay calm,” Turkish normally uses:

X-mak / X-mek gerektiğini hatırlatmak
→ sakin kalmam gerektiğini hatırlattı
“reminded (me) that I needed / should stay calm.”

If you drop gerekmek, you lose the “should / need to” meaning.

What is the difference between hatırlamak and hatırlatmak?

hatırlamak = to remember
- Duruşmayı hatırlıyorum. = I remember the hearing.
hatırlatmak = to remind (causative form of hatırlamak)
- Duruşmayı bana hatırlat. = Remind me of the hearing.

In your sentence:

hatırlattı = hatırla- (remember) + -t (causative) + -tı (past)
→ “(he/she) reminded.”

So:

Avukat … hatırlattı. = The lawyer reminded (someone).

How does word order work here? Why is it mahkemede sakin kalmam gerektiğini before hatırlattı?

Turkish basic sentence order is Subject – Object – Verb (SOV).

Avukat → subject
mahkemede sakin kalmam gerektiğini → object (a whole clause)
hatırlattı → main verb (past tense)

So the order:

[Avukat] [mahkemede sakin kalmam gerektiğini] [hatırlattı].

Within the clause:

mahkemede (adverbial: “in court”)
sakin (adjective, modifying the verb “stay”)
kalmam (nominalized verb, “my staying”)
gerektiğini (nominalized verb “that it was necessary”)

Because the main verb typically comes last in Turkish, all the details (where, what, that it was necessary) appear before hatırlattı.

Is there a difference between sakin kalmak and something like sakin olmak?

Yes, there is a nuance:

sakin olmak = to be calm (to become/act calm; more about a state)
sakin kalmak = to stay/remain calm (not to lose your calm)

In contexts like a court, exam, or stressful situation:

sakin kalmak is more natural because the idea is “don’t lose your calm; remain calm throughout.”

So:

mahkemede sakin kalmam gerektiğini hatırlattı
→ “(He/She) reminded me that I should stay calm in court.”
rather than just “be calm” at one moment.