Quoting cynicmystic:

Here is the gimmick though. Instead of saying 'gelemeyebilirim' you could have said 'gelemem', which would indicate the same thing with a subtle difference.

O gun gelemem. / I can't come that day.
O gun gelemeyebilirim. / I may not be able to come that day.

Quoting cynicmystic:

Hi Elisa,

I just wanted to add that, perhaps you may find it easier to conceptualize if you do not stick to grammatical descriptions too much. They are usually arbitrary, and do not always follow much logic unless one has a solid grasp of word formation patterns in Turkish.

The primary verb root is GEL+MEK / to come. All others derive from this root by combining themselves with either other verbal roots, such as BIL+MEK / to know, or suffixes.

Think about it in this way. BILMEK generally translates as knowing or being aware of something. It could also mean that you have sufficient knowledge or 'ability' to do something.

E.g. okumayi bilmek / to know how to read

What is special about the verb BILMEK is that it tends to attach itself to other verbs, and usually indicates that one has the 'ability' or 'Know-How' to do something.

E.g. gormek / to see gor+e+bil+mek / to be able to see
sevmek / to love sev+e+bil+mek / to be able to love

You must have noticed the infix -e that is used to combine the primary verb with the secondary verb 'bilmek' in order to create the compound verbal formations, such as gorebilmek or sevebilmek.

Quoting si++:

Quoting cynicmystic:

The dictionary defines the linguistic term infix as an insert (a morphological element) into the body of a word.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infix

I am perfectly aware of the grammar terms such as zarf and fiil. However, almost all grammar terminology of Modern Turkish was arbitrarily imposed, and is either taken from Arabic or Farsi. Hence, calling an ancient particle, such as the agglutinative -e/-a an infix, especially when it is used to glue one verb to another, is far more logical than calling it a zarffiil as you suggested.

Quoting si++:

Quoting cynicmystic:

I think it is kind of pointless to have this discussion as I clearly do not share your assumptions about the general linguistic concepts, such as suffixes, affixes, and infixes.

I also do not understand what you are trying to say by "Turkish logic doesn't work that way." You must be some kind of an expert on this so-called Turkish logic of yours. As a Turk, my mind works exactly in the way that you are suggesting it doesn't. That's a bit odd.

For me and particle that manages to place itself in the middle is an infix. A particle that attached itself to the end is a suffix, and one that comes at the beginning is a prefix.

GOR+DU.... +DU, in this case is a suffix in my mind.
ON+GOR+DU... ON+, is a prefix, although it has a meaning
OL+A+BIL+DI
GOR+E+BIL+DI
AL+IN+TI

You can pretty much break down any Turkish word into its components and assign specific functions. The -E/-A particle that you seem to be bent on not calling an infix works very much like an infix when it is in the middle position functioning as a glue to attach one verb to the other.

It is kind of trivial anyways.

Quoting si++:

I could explain more why it's not infix.

But yes I too find it pointless.

Last thing. I don't remember seeing any infix (içek) in any Turkish grammar book. Everything is listed as suffixes.

If you know any grammar book that talks about "infixes in Turkish" let me know.