Hello!

I found such a caption under a picture on wikipedia:

"Dated to 10.000 years before Christ, cave painting which alleged to could have been made to represent alien visitors." I have one doubt about this text. Shouldn´t there appear one more -i suffix after olabileceği? Because the first -i is possessive as I suppose - its (the painting´s) "could being". But when theres a direct verb used - ileri sürülen there should be accusative used, right? Like olabileceğini ileri sürülen?

#edit

Btw, why is there future participle used if the text actually refers to the past?

ileri sür|ül|mek is passive voice, that´s why the logical object is risen to the position of subject > no accusative ending.

-mış in yapılmış makes it past:

yapılmış olabileceği 

,

gokuyum, everyone can see he ment "past".

I didnt read the quote. And it misled me. But it can  mislead others too. So my warning isnt unnecessary.

SORRY.. I just corrected it now.. it´s what happens if you do two things at the same time.. 

Eagle-eyed goku

Protective sister abla  

It´s unnecessary now  

Anyway..thanks for warning..

You are right, gokuyum. I was joking. I noticed it myself and was about to post but you were faster. I ment it just looked like a lapsus linguae to me.

sürçü lisan