Learn Turkish: Nehir taşmakla kalmayıp bütün köyü yuttu. - The river didn't just overflow, it swallowed the whole village.

This is the core structure of this lesson. Let's break it down: taşmak (to overflow) gets the instrumental suffix -la (with). Then we have the verb kalmak (to stay/remain), made negative with -ma, and turned into a connecting converb with -(y)ıp (and). Literally, it translates to "not remaining with overflowing, and..." which gives us the smooth translation "not just overflowing, but also...".

Why do we use the -(y)ıp ending on kalmayıp instead of a regular tense?

The suffix -(y)ıp links two actions performed by the same subject, acting like the word "and" so you don't have to repeat the tense. It bridges the first action directly to the main verb at the end of the sentence (yuttu). Without it, you would have to write two separate, clunkier sentences: Nehir taşmakla kalmadı. Bütün köyü yuttu.

Why does köy take the accusative ending in köyü?

The verb yutmak (to swallow) is transitive, meaning it takes a direct object. Because the sentence specifies exactly which village was swallowed (the "whole village", bütün köy), the object is specific and therefore must take the definite accusative suffix -(y)ü.

Is yutmak commonly used metaphorically like "swallowed" is in English?