Question 1

How does sakladığını translate to "that he hid"?

Accepted Answer

This is the focus of your current lesson. It breaks down into sakla (hide) + dığ (the factive suffix -dık changed by consonant mutation) + ı (3rd person possessive meaning "his") + n (buffer letter) + ı (accusative case). It literally acts like a noun meaning "his hiding", and the final accusative case marks the whole clause as the direct object of what he confessed.

Question 2

Why are there two words with the accusative case (izleri and sakladığını)?

Accepted Answer

Each verb in the sentence has its own specific direct object. İzleri (the traces) is the object of the verb saklamak (to hide). Meanwhile, the entire action of "his hiding" (sakladığını) is the direct object of the main verb itiraf etmek (to confess). Both need the accusative ending because they are specific objects.

Question 3

Could sakladığını also mean "that you hid"?

Accepted Answer

Yes, it perfectly could! Because of the buffer letters and endings, sakla + dığın (your hiding) + ı (accusative) looks exactly the same as sakla + dığı (his hiding) + n (buffer) + ı (accusative). Without a pronoun like onun (his) or senin (your) in the sentence, you have to rely on context to know who did the hiding. Here, the translation tells us it means "that he hid".

Question 4

If I wanted to say "He confessed that I hid the traces", how would the sentence change?

Accepted Answer

You would only need to change the possessive ending on the hidden verb. "My hiding" is sakladığım. To make it the direct object of the confession, add the accusative -ı, giving you sakladığımı. The new sentence would be: İzleri bahçede sakladığımı itiraf etti.

İzleri bahçede sakladığını itiraf etti.

Breakdown of İzleri bahçede sakladığını itiraf etti.

Questions & Answers about İzleri bahçede sakladığını itiraf etti.

Learn İzleri bahçede sakladığını itiraf etti and more in Turkish