Learn Hardcore Turkish: Bazen kimsenin beni anlamadığını sansam da sen gerçekten dinliyorsun. - Even though I sometimes think that nobody understands me, you really listen.

In the phrase kimsenin beni anlamadığını, kimsenin is the subject of the embedded clause beni anlamamak, and it’s put into the genitive case.

Pattern:

[subject in genitive] + [verb with -DIK / -mA + possessive]
→ forms a “that-clause” (a verbal noun phrase).

Examples:

Ali’nin geldiğini biliyorum.
“I know that Ali has come / is coming.”
(Ali’nin = subject in genitive, geldiğini = nominalized verb)

In the same way:

kimse → kimsenin (genitive, “of anyone / of nobody”)
kimsenin beni anlamadığını ≈ “that nobody understands me”

So kimsenin is genitive because it’s the subject inside that embedded “that-clause” which acts as the object of sanmak (“to think/suppose”).

Does kimsenin here mean “anyone’s” or “nobody’s”? How is it negative?

Kimse is a so‑called polarity word in Turkish:

In positive sentences, it tends to mean “anyone”.
In negative sentences, it means “no one / nobody”.

Here the verb is anlamadığını (“that (they) don’t understand”), which is negative (because of -ma-). So:

kimsenin beni anlamadığını
literally: “that anyone’s not-understanding-me”
functionally: “that nobody understands me.”

The combination kimse + negative verb is what gives you “nobody”.

What exactly is beni and why is it in that form?

Beni is the accusative form of ben (“I / me”).

Personal pronoun:

ben → beni (accusative, “me”)
sen → seni (you)
o → onu (him / her / it), etc.

Inside the clause:

beni anlamamak = “to not understand me.”

Because ben is the direct object of anlamak, it must take the -i accusative ending: beni, not ben.

Can you break down anlamadığını morpheme by morpheme?

Yes. Anlamadığını is a nominalized verb form:

anla- → root “understand”
-ma- → negative marker → anlama- “not understand”
-dık → nominalizer (forms “the fact of …ing”)
with vowel harmony & consonant change: anlamadık → anlamadığı (before a vowel)
-ı → 3rd person singular possessive
anlamadığı = “his/her/its not-understanding”
-n- → buffer consonant
-ı → accusative case

So:

anla-ma-dığ-ı-n-ı
literally: “his/her not‑understanding (of it/him/her) (as an object)”

In context, kimsenin is the possessor/subject:

kimsenin beni anlamadığını ≈ “the fact that nobody understands me” / “that nobody understands me.”

The 3rd‑person possessive -ı is required with this kind of -DIK nominalization when there is an explicit subject in the genitive (here kimsenin).

Why does anlamadığını also have an accusative ending -ı? Isn’t it already a verb?

Once anlamak is turned into anlamadığını, it no longer behaves as a normal finite verb; it behaves like a noun phrase (“the fact that …”).

That whole phrase kimsenin beni anlamadığını is the object of sanmak (“to think/suppose”).

In Turkish, a definite direct object usually takes accusative:

Kitabı okudum. – “I read the book.”
Ali’nin geldiğini biliyorum. – “I know that Ali has come.”

Similarly:

kimsenin beni anlamadığını sanıyorum.
“I think that nobody understands me.”

So -ı on anlamadığını is the accusative marking that this whole nominalized clause is the object of sanmak.

Is anlamadığını present tense or past tense? Why is there -dı in it?

Formally, -dık (here seen as -dığ-) often looks like past tense, but in -DIK nominalizations the time is relative and depends on the main verb.

With a present‑tense main verb, -DIK usually refers to present / general time:
- Ali’nin geldiğini biliyorum.
  “I know that Ali has come / is here / is coming.”
- Onun beni sevdiğini sanıyorum.
  “I think (that) he loves me.”

In our sentence, the main clause sen gerçekten dinliyorsun is present, so:

kimsenin beni anlamadığını → “that nobody understands me”
(current, not necessarily in the past)

The -dı inside -dık here is part of the nominalizer, not a simple past tense ending.

Why is it sansam and not sanıyorum or sanarsam?

Sansam comes from:

san- (= to suppose, to think, to assume)
-sa / -se = conditional suffix
-m = 1st person singular

So sansam = “if I think / even if I think.”

The structure -sa(m) da gives a concessive meaning:

sansam da ≈ “even if I (sometimes) think / even though I think.”

If you used sanıyorum, it would be:

Bazen kimsenin beni anlamadığını sanıyorum, ama sen gerçekten dinliyorsun.
“Sometimes I think that nobody understands me, but you really listen.”

That’s more like a straightforward “I think X, but Y.”

Sansam da instead expresses “even if I happen to think that…”, which is softer and more hypothetical, and fits the emotional nuance better.

Sanarsam (aorist + conditional) is more like “if I (ever) think / if I come to think,” and is less idiomatic here than sansam da.

What exactly is the role of da in sansam da?

Here da is the enclitic particle de/da, written separately from the word before it. Combined with the conditional -sa, it gives a concessive meaning:

… sansam da … ≈ “even if I think … / although I think …”

Compare:

Gelsem de gelmesem de, fark etmez.
“Whether I come or not, it doesn’t matter.”
(literally: “Even if I come, even if I don’t come…”)

Important:

de/da as this particle is written separately: sansam da.
The -de / -da locative suffix is attached: evde (“at home”).

So in your sentence da is not “in/at/on,” it’s the “even though / even if” element attached to the conditional.

Is sen necessary here? Could we just say gerçekten dinliyorsun?

Grammatically, sen is not necessary:

(Sen) gerçekten dinliyorsun. – “You really listen / are really listening.”

The verb ending -sun already tells us it’s 2nd person singular.

But sen adds contrast and emphasis:

… kimsenin beni anlamadığını sansam da sen gerçekten dinliyorsun.
“Even if I think nobody understands me, you really listen.”

The idea is “nobody else does, but you do.”
Dropping sen would weaken that contrast.

Why is the verb dinliyorsun (progressive) and not dinlersin (aorist)?

Dinliyorsun is:

dinle- (to listen) + -yor (progressive) + -sun (2sg)
→ “you are listening / you really do listen (on those occasions).”

The -yor form often expresses:

an action happening at the time, or
a typical ongoing behavior in emotional / personal contexts.

Using dinlersin (aorist):

sen gerçekten dinlersin = “you (generally) do listen / you tend to listen.”

That would sound more like a neutral statement of habit.
Dinliyorsun feels more immediate and emotional: “You really do listen (when I’m in that state).”

What does gerçekten add, and where can it appear in the sentence?

Gerçekten means “really, truly, genuinely.”
It intensifies dinliyorsun:

sen dinliyorsun → “you listen”
sen gerçekten dinliyorsun → “you really do listen / you truly listen.”

Typical positions (all correct, with slightly different emphasis):

Sen gerçekten dinliyorsun. (neutral; “you really listen.”)
Sen dinliyorsun gerçekten. (more emphasis on “really” at the end.)
Gerçekten sen dinliyorsun. (emphasis on “it’s you who really listens.”)

In the original, sen gerçekten dinliyorsun nicely contrasts with kimsenin beni anlamadığını: “nobody understands me, but you really listen.”

Could we move bazen somewhere else? Does its position change the meaning?

Yes, moving bazen changes what is “sometimes.”

Original:

Bazen kimsenin beni anlamadığını sansam da, sen gerçekten dinliyorsun.
Here bazen modifies sansam:
“Sometimes, even if I think nobody understands me, you really listen.”

If you move bazen near dinliyorsun:

Sen bazen gerçekten dinliyorsun.
→ “Sometimes you really listen.”
Now it’s your listening that is occasional, not the speaker’s thinking.

If you say:

Kimsenin beni anlamadığını bazen sansam da, sen gerçekten dinliyorsun.
It still basically means “Even though I sometimes think that nobody understands me…”, but sounds less natural; initial position Bazen … is smoother.

So the original placement makes it clear: it’s the speaker’s thought (“that nobody understands me”) that happens sometimes.

Could we say düşünsem instead of sansam? What’s the difference?

You could say:

Bazen kimsenin beni anlamadığını düşünsem de sen gerçekten dinliyorsun.

and it would be understood.

Difference in nuance:

sanmak → “to suppose, to assume, to (maybe mistakenly) think, to feel like”
düşünmek → “to think, to consider (actively), to reflect”

So:

sansam suggests a more emotional, maybe irrational assumption:
“Even if I (sometimes) get it into my head that nobody understands me…”
düşünsem sounds more like a conscious thought:
“Even if I (sometimes) think that nobody understands me…”

Both are grammatically correct; sanmak simply has that “suppose / assume (maybe wrongly)” flavor which fits this kind of sentence well.

Can the whole subordinate clause kimsenin beni anlamadığını go after sansam?

You could technically say:

Bazen sansam da kimsenin beni anlamadığını, sen gerçekten dinliyorsun.

but this is unusual and feels awkward. In Turkish, long subordinate “that‑clauses” like this are normally kept together and before the verb they belong to:

Kimsenin beni anlamadığını sanıyorum.
Ali’nin geleceğini biliyorum.

So:

Bazen kimsenin beni anlamadığını sansam da sen gerçekten dinliyorsun.

keeps the natural order: [bazen] + [kimsenin beni anlamadığını] + [sansam da] + [main clause].

That’s why your original sentence sounds natural and fluent.