-meli-necessitative,

1. are you sure it is not an adjective derived with -li-suffix from the infinitive base just like şekerli, dikkatlı, ümitli, meaning ´one that has this quality of being into this action´? Just a guess. There is something doubtful about its syntactic performance and I wonder if it is a verb at all.

2. Baba evde olmalı. Which ones of these meanings are possible:

         - ´Father must stay at home (because he has no other choice)´.

         - ´Father must stay at home (because someone has forced him to)´.

         - ´Father must be at home (I´m certain)´.

3. Baba evde olmamalı. If it is a manipulative sentence, does it mean

         - ´Father must not be at home´ OR

         - ´Father doesn´t have to be at home.´?

Yep. I´m pretty sure. Without checking anything.

Notice that it´s very similar to English construction. Why?

"x-li y" suffix means "y having something which contains/accompanied by x.

English construction: having + infinitive

Turkish construction: having + infinitive

 Malı,meli  marks the modal functions of necessity/ and assumption.

- ´Father must stay at home --> may convey the necessity in a context where he is the only person without whom a situation will be incomplete.

- ´Father must stay at home ---> It may be also interpreted as an assumption in a context where the speaker has reason to believe that Father is at home.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Baba evde olmamalı ---> necessity and assumption applies to negative forms too.

1.  It is necessary that Father must not be at home when we throw a party. 

    Parti verdiğimizde baba evde olmamalı.

2.  Assuming that  [I believe] Father must not be at home now as there is no lights on at home.

Evde ışıklar kapalı olduğuna göre baba evde olmamalı.

    I believe

    In my opinon

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-meli and -li suffixes has no relation as far as I know.

Well, tunci,

First, use your brain, rationalise. A suffix with 2 syllables cannot be created out of nothing.

Secondly, use your eyes. It´s right there and is begging for you to look at it more closely.

meli = me-li

 did you wake up from the wrong side of the bed today again ??

You use your brain . and check your lingo when you adress people ..

meli is necessitive --> Gitmeli

li --> "with" --> bahçeli ev --> house with garden.

simple is that..

You need to improve your analytical skills.

 And you need to improve your manners mate which is more important sometimes when you teach people.

-li always added to a noun. This noun either be an original one or one which is made from a verb stem by adding -me/-ma:

a) noun+li => noun/adjective

şeker-li (çay) , tuz-lu (yemek), örtü-lü (ödenek), boya-lı (duvar)

Amerika-lı, Ankara-lı, kent-li, okul-lu

b) verb+me/ma+li/lı => necessitative mood

yaz-malı-yım

yaz-malı-sın

yaz-malı

yaz-malı-y-ız

yaz-malı-sınız

yaz-malı-lar

Thank you, si++, tunci, scalpel. The connection with the adjective suffix looks clear from the surface, even to the level of meaning but in derivation especially everything is not always as it looks like. It was just a thought.

What do you say, can Baba evde olmamalı also mean ´Father doesn´t have to/need to be at home´? Similarly, what does Bayanlar makyaj yapmalı mı? Yapmamalı mı? mean exactly?

Baba evde olmamalı

a) i.e. He is either at work or on the way back home/ not yet back home

b) i.e. One of my friend will visit me and I don´t want my father to meet him.  

c) i.e. He should go out to work instead of staying at home.

Bayanlar Kadınlar makyaj yapmalı mı yapmamalı mı?

=> which is better for women, to put on make up or not? 

For the meaning of ´it is not necessary for him, he doesn´t have to´ is ihtiyac olmak the only possibility?

No, it is not the only possibility.

You can also use gerek olmak, lazım olmak, zorunlu olmak.

Bunu yapmaya(yapmasına) ihtiyacı yok.

Bunu yapmasına gerek yok

Bunu yapması lazım değil

Bunu yapması zorunlu değil

Clear. Faruk, thanks.

Actually ihtiyacı olmak is not one of the possibilities.. I think what confuses you is the English verb need which has two different uses.

1) need (verb transitive)=want, require => ihtiyacı var/yok; muhtaç/ muhtaç değil :

Bahçenin yağmura ihtiyacı var - The garden needs rain

Bunun hatırlatılmasına ihtiyacı yoktu - He didn´t need to be reminded about it

Yardıma ihtiyacı var mı? - Does he need any help?

Sana muhtacım - I need you

Yardıma muhtaç değil - he doesn´t need help

2) need (anomalous finite verb) = be obliged; be necessary => gerekiyor; gerekli; lazım

Gitmen gerekiyor mu? Gitmen gerekli mi? Gitmen lazım mı? - Need you go yet?

Hayır, gerekmiyor. Hayır, gerekli değil. Hayır, lazım değil - No, I needn´t

Henüz gitmen gerekmiyor, gerekiyor mu? - You needn´t go yet, need you?

 The other Turkish words and suffixes expressing an immediate, future or past obligation or necessity, and their possible English equivalents are as follows:

i) -malı, -meli / -mamalı, -memeli

Onu yapmalısın - you must do that

Onu yapmamalısın - you must not do that

ii) zorunda; mecburiyetinde; mecbur

Onu yapmak zorundasın/mecburiyetindesin, Onu yapmaya mecbursun - You have to do that

Onu yapmak zorunda/ mecburiyetinde değilsin, Onu yapmaya mecbur değilsin - You don´t have to do that.

a) 

Thanks for your effort again, scalpel. Do you mean ihtiyaç olmak governs only nouns? Stubborn as I am I even checked the first 1691 pages from Google hits and found only a couple of cases with indirect infinitive object:

         Kimsenin kucağına oturmaya ihtiyacım yok.

So, I guess the case is clear. Anyway, as modalities always tend to move into more abstract meanings, this structure might be on its way into expressing ´not being necessary´ also. The development of modal expressions is surprisingly alike in non-related languages.

Good point.

noun+e/a ihtiyaç+PE var/yok

-mek form of a verb is noun (verbal noun)

-e/a is one of five cases of Turkish nouns.

otur-mak-a ihtiyacım yok.

..and yes, it must be clear now

Is -(e)bil-/-eme- possibility also as wide in meaning?

         ‘The restaurant can not accept credit cards.’

         ‘The restaurant may not accept credit cards.’

Can they both be expressed Lokanta kredi kartları kabul edemez?

may = -ebilir (probability)

may = -emez (permission)

I suspected something like that. Thanks, si++.

Actually I have added some more.

These are important differences which do not show in the dictionary. Very clear now.

The restaurant can not accept credit cards.

Here , AbilMEk is how we translate it.

Restoran kredi karti kabul edemez. --> But in practice this sort of "warnings" are in Aorist tense ;

" Restoran kredi karti kabul etmez " the proper and offical way that is used in real life is;

" [Bu restoranda] Kredi karti gecmez " ---> The credit card is not accepted.

  ##  Mostly this structures are in expressed in passive form ;

  " Kredi karti kabul edilmez "-->  [ No credit cards accepted]

" [Bu restoranda] Sigara icilmez"  --> No smoking [in the restaurant]

" Buraya park edilmez " --> No parking here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

But when we return to the main question; lets translate them without the concern of its usage  in real life ;

 " Restoran kredi karti kabul edemez " ---> The restaurant can not [unable to] accept credit cards.

 In the sentence above, the meaning of  incapability,ineligibility,lacking of power,unable to perform to accepting credit cards. In other words, because there is a legal restrictions or any other reasons that the restaurant can not accept credit cards.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

‘The restaurant may not accept credit cards.’

Restoran kredi karti kabul etmeyebilir.

In the sentence above ; there is a " possiblity of not to be accepted credit cards", It may accept or may not, There is no guarantee that restaurant will accept credit cards, There is MAY or not MAY.

Again, in practice we have dont tend to use "May not form " [ -meyebilir ] in warnings.

Aorist tense is dominates the " warnings and notifications "

as exceptions may be in positive notifications ;

" Sigara icilebilir " but again this is not favorable to use.

Note : Mind the " missing dots " in turkish letters as I was unable to put them in this post for some reason

Ahh... Tunci, here you have touched on an important point in English, which is ambiguous.

The distinction between can and may has been worn away over the years.

A few decades ago: 

CAN = ability

MAY = permission

so if as little children we asked our teacher "Can I go to the toilet?" she would say "I am sure you are able to, but you need to ask if I will let you", meaning we should ask "May I go to the toilet".

Now can and may are pretty much interchangeable. So much so that you would normally say "Can" for both.

Can you go: Gidebilir misin

Can you go: Gitmek için müsaadeniz var mı?

From this, may (which used to denote either permission or possibility) now normally only refers to possibility

He may go: gidebilir, belki gidecek, gitmesi olasılıklı v.b.

You need the full context to make sense of can and may in English

 Good old days he !...Evet, we have same problem about the way kids,youngsters,even adults adressing impolite way and are losing the gentleness and politeness..

That would be still quite polite if we just add "Efendim " in front or in the end of our requests when we ask permissions..

Gidebilir miyim Efendim...?

Efendim gidebilir miyim..?

Thank you for your prompt answer, tunci. I hope you get your dots back soon. Thank you, too, MarioninTurkey. You reminded me may has a deontic meaning, too.

I just love this verb form:

         et|me|yebil|ir

It is like one of these Russian wooden dolls: when you go from left to right always the previous unit fits into the next one and at the same time we move from more concrete level (action, negation) to more abstract meanings (possibility). Could there be a

         ed|eme|yebil|ir ´may not be able to accept´

also?

There could, if you mean probability (not permission).

I´m sorry I´m being boring again but when certain thing gets cleared other questions rise up.

It is clear now that –meli- stands for both obligation and certainty just like -(e)bil- has the meaning of ability/permission and probability. What if there is a combination of

1) ability and certainty: ‘He must be able to swim 50 metres. (We have practiced a lot.)’

2) ability and obligation: ‘He must be able to swim 50 metres. (Otherwise he won’t be accepted to the course.)’

3) Inability and possibility (´He may not be able to run´ is edemebilir, is ability and possibility edebilebilir?

4) What about necessity and possibility (‘He may have to run&rsquo?

________________________

And yet another small thing. Trying to find examples of past certainty I found hits like Adlı tıp uzmanlarının tahminine göre yedi ya da sekiz gün evvel ölmüş olmalıydı. I understand this is a pluperfect sentence. If instead of ölmüş olmalıydı there was ölmeliydi would it still have the meaning of past certainty?

________________________

These small questions look exhausting. I will try to connect the information in the replies into some kind of brief when I am finished so that it will be in an easier form for everyone to use (if I can).

For sure these things have been collected many times somewhere. It looks like a job that a professor could give to a seminar student. But how to put it in a simple way for a learner and  -  more than that  -  as a learner is another question. There are so many factors to take into account.

Is ´he may be able to run´ koşabilebilir?

Morphologically, -(e)bil- can come after -meli- but not vice versa, is it?

You know, I must have thought of the opposite but mixed it while writing...sorry.

______________________

Forms like et|me|yebil|ir ´may not do´ or koş|ama|yabil|ir ´may not be able to run´ really demonstrate the simple logics of Turkish morphology. Look at the place of the negation: it is attached to the part which is in fact denied, not to a grammatical hanger like in auxiliary languages. This is a very pedantic way to express the meaning. Actually you should translate them ´it may be that he doesn´t do´, ´it may be that he is not able to run´.

These epistemic examples also show that -(e)bil- still very much represents a full lexical verb even though due to agglutination it is usually seen as a grammatical morpheme.

Just a couple of modest notes, nothing important.

It´s not so tightly coupled as you may think.

gele de bilirim, gelmeye de bilirim = I may as well come, I may not either come.

have you noticed that -ebil- has been cut into two pieces (-e de bil-).

Also note that though we write -ebil as a suffix, it is written separately in Azeri Turkish.

gele bilerem = I may/can come

I guess I understood why -memeli cannot mean ´doesn´t have to´. In Turkish modally modified verbs the negation marking is attached to the morpheme which is in fact denied. It is attached after it, not before it. Thus the negating morpheme -me- can only concern the verb root, not the necessitative -meli-. So, etmemeli has no other choice but to make ´it is necessary that he doesn´t do´. If we want to negate the necessitative only we have to use roundabout expressions like lazım as mentioned before in this thread.

What about değil? It is the usual way to negate an adjective. I even found occurances:

         Gitmeli değil miydik?

         Onunla birlikte melekler gelmeli değil miydi?

But that´s what I was looking for, si++. I was asking if değil also will do "if we want to negate the necessity only" which makes the meaning of ´not necessary, not obliged´. I mean -memeli cannot mean ´not necessary´ but maybe -meli değil can (just like gerekmiyor or lazım değil).

gitmeli = obliged-to-go, in-need-to-go (adj)

gitmemeli = obliged-to-not-go, in-need-to-not-go (neg adj), supposed to be not going

gitmeli değil = not obliged-to-go, not in-need-to-go (neg adj), not supposed to be going, there is not any reason/necessity/obligation for him to go

gitmemeli değil = not obliged-to-not-go, not in-need-to-not-go (neg-neg adj), not supposed to be not going, there is not any specific reason/necessity/obligation for him not to go

Why´s that? Hadn´t I read somethings here yesterday??

I don´t know, don´t ask me. The more I looked at it the more stupid it seemed. And I prefer not to look (so very) stupid.

I just had taken a quick look at the text. I told to myself "hey, this looks complicated maybe I should read it some other time".

It´s childish, I know, but you know, this feeling that you sometimes get when you look at your own text...

Ok, considering that

       1. no one else will probably bother to read it

       2. you have already witnessed all my blunders during months, si++,

I guess I still have it somewhere here...(opening and closing miscellanous files). Here. Feel free to read it when you have time.

________

Modality in linguistics means expressions of possibility and necessity and the continuum between them.

In Turkish, two basic grammatical morphemes express modal functions: -meli- for ‘certainty, obligation, no choice’ and –(e)bil- for ‘ability, permission, possibility’. In addition, lexical expressions are used, such as the adjectives lazım and mecbur, the verb gerekmek ‘to be necessary’ and numerous conversational adverbials (belki, elbette).

The modal morphemes are added to the verb stem in a certain order. Closest to the stem we will find expressions of Dynamic modality (I in the table below) which concern the agent’s personal qualities or given conditions. Deontic modalities (II) are consequences of manipulation. Epistemic modality (III) works in the truth values that the speaker gives to the proposition. It hasn’t come to my knowledge that verbal expressions of dynamic and deontic modality differ in Turkish but I keep them separate because they can both have their expression in the same verb.

For more information about the definitions of dynamic, deontic and epistemic modality, see http://dinamico2.unibg.it/anglistica/slin/modgloss.htm.

I collected some examples of typical modal meanings which were handled in this discussion. Notice, that in this table only potential -(e)bil-, necessitative -meli- and negation are used.

It surprised me to see how logical the system is and how the three-button-game (bil, meli, NEG) is played. Not every possible combination, though, is really used in language.

But there is still one joker: certain modal meanings can only be expressed with the help of lexical elements: koşmak zorunda kalabilir, bunu yapması lazım değil and gitmemeli değil rose up in this discussion. The simple table explains them also. You see, whatever combination there is of the three types of modality, –meli- is the last element on the right. Nothing follows it, not even negation. So,

         16. koşmak zorunda kalabilir ‘he may have to run’ ≠ koş + meli + bil

         17. bunu yapması lazım değil ‘he doesn’t have to do this’ ≠ yap + meli + NEG

         18. gitmemeli değil: ‘it’s not necessary for him not to go’ ≠ git + NEG + meli + NEG

because in this simple system of three options –meli- cannot be followed by anything. That’s why roundabout (lexical) expressions have to be used instead.