Ali´nin geldiği zaman çarşıya gittik.

Sütlaç ılıdıktan sonra üzerine tarçın serpin.

Why is the subject part of the participle structure sometimes in genitive case and sometimes not?

Greetings from here.

that should be ; Ali geldiği zaman çarşıya gittik.  --> when Ali arrived, we went to the market.

so We dont put "nin" suffex to subject.

the second sentence is ok.

Example ; if it was like this ;

Ali´nin buraya gelmesi uzun sürdü ---> Ali´s coming here took long time ..which means It took long time for Ali to come here.

 Ali´s coming  -->  his coming ---> therefore we put "nin"

I´m surprised because the fault was not mine: I took the sentence from a Turkish lesson. Maybe it was a misspelling. But it was good it was there because I had the wrong idea about this grammar point. And besides, one suffix less is always good news.

The need for genitive subject concerns only infinitives, doesn´t it? Is this a strict rule? What about infinitives, do they ever accept nominative subjects? (I have some googleing to do).

Thanks, tunci.

Ali geldiği zaman = When Ali comes/came,

Ali´nin geldiği zaman = specifically when Ali came/come,

For the second form, there is a specific reference to the time when Ali comes/came. That said, you should come across with the first one most of the times.

Ali´nin geldiği zaman = (at) the time Ali came/come,

This is an adjective clause but acts as a time adverb.

Ali geldiği zaman = When Ali comes/came,

This is an adverbial clause in that you have the subject in nominative case (no suffix)

as in

Ali gelince = when Ali comes/came,

Ben gelince = when I come/came

or

Ali gelmeden önce = before Ali comes/came

Ben gelmeden önce = before I come/came,

etc.

I can somehow understand the difference in syntax but the nuances in meaning are hard to perceive, of course. Thanks for giving it a thought.

Gerund-equivalent. That´s the word my grammar uses. And now I understand that´s what is ment here:

The inlayed subject, when it is a noun, is in nominative when the underlined structure is adverbial and could be changed into a gerund. This is the case in sentences like (a) Orhan geldiği gün yağmur yağdı. In other cases, like (b) Orhan´ın Rize´de kaldığı günlerde çok yağmur yağdı or (c) Orhan´ın geldiği gün yağmurlu idi, the underlined part is an adjective modifying the following noun.

I´m getting closer. But what is another problem is that you can´t trust a simple word: gibi at least makes two kinds of participle structures, and only one of them is gerund-equivalent:

            Annesi odaya girdiği gibi bebek ağlamayı bıraktı.

And my unfortunate e-t translation was from the other type.

            damlayı doktorun söylediği gibi kullan

You can´t stare at a key word but have to see the wholeness. The gibi case is clear when you understand that there are two different meanings but for sure new problems will pop up. I understand from the previous messages that zaman also in some cases can get involved with an adjective structure which is not gerund-equivalent and thus takes its inlayed subject in the genitive.

The actual problem was in the terminology. What is called a noun clause by one writer is called an adjective clause by another. Both terms are justified from the grammar point of view, but these are the small details which make things difficult.

Sorry I´m being dull and gnagging about the same thing every week. There was supposed to be some kind of question here but I forgot it. Just thinking to myself. Wanted to tell I have a basic idea now.

I follow these namings without getting into too much detail:

Noun clause: A subclause that functions as a noun in the main clause

Erdem´in bize gelmesini beklemiyorduk. = We didn´t expect Erdem´s coming to us.

Adjective clause: A subclause that functions as an adjective in the main clause

Erdem´in bize getirdiği hediye çok hoştu = The gift (which) Erdem has brought to us was very nice.

Adverbial clause: A subclause that functions as an adverb in the main clause

Erdem bize geldiğinde yemek yiyorduk = We were having our dinner when Erdem came to us.

Clear as a bell. Thanks, si++!

-dan dolayı is causing a small hysteria to me. I bagged this sentence from scalpel from another thread:

         Yeni bir ayakkabı almak istediğimden dolayı ben de gitmek istedim.

Is this what we can call an adverbial clause (or gerund-equivalent)? Of course, what I am after is the case of the inlayed subject if it was a noun.

That was from me asking about the difference between the context of -den bu yana (which was new to me) or -den beri and -den dolayı. My original sentence in English was "I wanted to go also, since I wanted to get new shoes", as in "since" used as a preposition. I suppose that could be adverbial clause also?

Yeni bir ayakkabı almak istediğimden dolayı ben de gitmek istedim.

The underline part acts as an adverb so it´s adverbial clause.

-den dolayı = because of

Yeni bir ayakkabı almak istediğim = my wanting to buy a new shoe.

Yes, Mavili, it was originally your sentence. I took the freedom to borrow it because it was a clear one.

I found the information about this structure controversial (maybe I was mixing things because often -dan dolayı takes simple nouns and verbal nouns) but now it´s clear. Thanks to you, si++!

We´ve got this far in this thread:

The rule is very simple and has no exceptions:

X-genitive Y-possessive

X=Erdem or o (doesn´t mater)

Short is beautiful. Thank you, si++.

Absolutely! It´s an art to say more with less words.

This is what the dictionary says about rica etmek:

I understand who is requested is marked with ablative, what is requested with accusative, right? This is clear when we operate with noun phrases:

Rusça bilen bir arkadaştan yardım rica ediyorum.

But I am a little unsecure when it comes to the situation where a complete sentence is inlayed into a main clause with rica etmek as its predicate:

Düğün fotoğraflarını çekeceğim. > Bir arkadaşım düğün fotoğraflarını çekmemi rica etti.

Köşk sahiplerine davet mektubu gönderecekler. > Köşk sahiplerine davet mektubu göndermeleri rica edildi.

As long as the inlayed subject is a personal pronoun you just add the equivalent possessive suffix in the end of the infinitive. But if the subject is a noun is it still going take ablative ending or will it take genitive and form a possessive construction together with the infinitive? I find both alternatives:

İsteyen tüm arkadaşlar katılacaklar. > İsteyen tüm arkadaşların katılmasını rica ederim.

Başbakan daha sakin olacak. > Ben başbakandan daha sakin olmasını rica ediyorum.

Is there a difference in meaning? The genitive subject sounds more logical to me. Maybe the ablative word in the latter example is not an inlayed subject at all but a part of the main clause and the inlayed subject is (the dropped down) sg 3^rd instead?

Sorry guys, I think I answered it.

Bir sorum var. "Ben başbakandan daha sakin olmasını rica ediyorum" cümlesinde "(kendisinin) daha sakin olmasını" tümceciğinin öğelerini nasıl gösteririz. Örneğin kendisinin gizli özne, daha zarf, sakin olmasını yüklem midir? Feyza Hepçilingirlerin buna benzer çözümlemer yaptığını biliyorum. Benim ki doğru mu?

I understand from your analyse, gokuyum, that the difference is something like this (if we try sentences which are as close to one another as possible):

1) Ben [başbakanın daha sakin olmasını] rica ediyorum.

2) Ben başbakandan [daha sakin olmasını] rica ediyorum.

The hidden or visible indirect (ablative) object always belongs to the main clause, doesn’t it? If so, how does supposing it there or out of there take us any further? My idea was that in the previous example the governed clause is inlayed as a whole while in the latter the inlayed subject would actually be o/kendisi which means that the inlayed sentences would be something like

1) Başbakan daha sakin olacak.

2) O/kendisi daha sakin olacak.

Not that it matters so much to me. Actually I was just trying to translate something, got stuck and began to play with this thought.

Yes, I think like you.

Here is my addition to the thread and I hope you find it useful.. 

Biz, onun bize gelmesini beklemiyorduk  (onun bize gelmesini => direct object )

Onun bize getirdiği hediye çok hoştu (onun bize getirdiği hediye => subject)

Biz, o bize geldiğinde yemek yiyorduk ( o bize geldiğinde => adverb/adverbial adjunct)

Let´s simplify the sentences (their meanings remain the same):

Gelmesini beklemiyorduk (gelmesini => direct object )

Getirdiği hediye çok hoştu (getirdiği hediye => subject )

Geldiğinde yemek yiyorduk (geldiğinde =>adverb/adverbial adjunct )

I was staring at my own quote for a while before I understood what I maybe must have ment with it. It seems that you found a real pearl, scalpel.

What comes to the inlayed subject the case with personal pnonouns is the simplest of all, of course, as your examples show because as a rule the person becomes visible in the possessive suffix of the predicate.

I must have been thinking about a case where

- predicate is in passive voice

- there is a logical object in the sentence which I have to rise up as the subject

- this object cannot be omitted for some reason (it probably refers to a thing, a state of affairs)

anyway something that I don´t meet every day. That´s why I was asking. I can add the sentence later if I can recall it. And the same nominative - genetive rule held just like si++ answered here.

Let´s keep playing a little more  

x-den y-ı rica et(mek)

Onlar, senden gitmeni rica ediyorlar

Sen, ondan kalmasını rica ettin

O, sizden sessiz olmanızı rica etmişti

Ben, onlardan kayıtsız kalmamalarını rica edeceğim

Both pronouns can be dropped as the personal endings in the DO and predicate are clear enough to know what is the subject and if the IO is 2nd or 3rd person.. 

Gitmeni rica ediyorlar (2nd per. sing. - 3rd per.plu. ) 

Kalmasını rica ettin (3rd per.sing - 2nd per.sing. )

Sessiz olmanızı rica etmişti (2nd per.plu. - 3rd per.sing. )

Kayıtsız kalmamalarını rica edeceğim (3rd per.plu. - 1st per.sing)

I just noticed now that DO is always in me/ma form of verb.

As for your examples.. (nr 2 ) is correct but (nr 1 ) is not

2) Başbakandan (daha sakin olmasını  rica ediyorum. (correct)

1) Ben (başbakanın daha sakin olmasını ) rica ediyorum (incorrect)

It is incorrect because the question "from who" is unanswered..

You can say 

Ben (başbakanın daha sakin olmasını ) kendisinden rica ediyorum

But it doesn´t sound great. 

What? Now I am all confused. Time out. I will have to do some googleing first thing in the morning. I will bring you twenty incorrect sentences, scalpel.

Twenty sentences...sigh...I shouldn´t post anything at midnight. I hope you have a skin thick enough, scalpel.

What you say is very clear. It seems that as a learner I cannot fully understand what Turkish pronoun dropping leads into and that´s why I interpret sentences incorrectly. The length of this thread shows that the issue of inlayed subject has unconsciously worried me since very early stages of learning. It´s partly because sentences in which personal pronouns are used are so simplified that you can´t use them as a model for sentences with noun subjects in spite of their frequence in use.

Impersonal sentences are another source of confusion:

İsteyen tüm arkadaşların katılmasını rica ederim.

There is ø in the place of the indirect object and the genitive noun is the subject of the passive infinitive. Well, it is not the simplest thing in the world.

What comes to structures with rica etmek we are under the wrong headline. The complement clause is not fully inlayed but it stays as a part of the main clause. If it was and inlayed clause our choise for the subject case would be between nominative and genitive.

Why do you think so? I don´t think it is incorrect. It is just the other way of expressing it. It is not necessary that "from who" to be anwered.

I don´t think there is a problem with this sentence.