I was reading an introduction to Turkish grammatical structure from 1992 and was surprised to find there (after the usual 6 + instrumental) the eighth case called equative. The writer, Jorma Atilla, described it as an ambiguous case which can express things like ´according to/on behalf of/by´ and which is marked with -ce (plus its all vowel harmony variants, of course). The following examples were given:

         Mahkemece verilen karar sizi de bağlar. (agent of a passive clause, which I thougt was always expressed by a postposition structure)

         Gençler arkadaşça davranıyorlardı.

         Parçaları aylarca beklemek zorunda kaldık.

It´s no big deal. The border line between word derivation and inflection is not a clear one in any language and some endings may just carry characteristics from them both. But it still made me think of the various things in Turkish which are expressed by -ce. I don´t know if the following are from the same origin  -  probably not  -  but the outward similarity is confusing to a learner:

1. -ce makes adverbs from adjectives (iyice ´well´, güzelce ´properly, beautifully´ and nouns (çocukça ´childishly´. It makes an agent in passive voice. It´s used in numerical expressions (haftalarca önce ´weeks before´ and names of languages derived from names of people (İngilizce) plus in other adverbial expressions like bence and böylece.

2. -ce is a diminutive marker, as it modifies adjectives: güzelce ´quite good´, genççe ´rather young´

3. -ce seems to be a usual last-two-letters in verb inflection, too. The -ince-gerund of a verb describes an action just prior to the main verb: o gelince kalkarım ´when he comes I shall get up´. Added to a dik-participle -ce denotes ´so long as, the more´: o güldükçe, ben de güldüm. And I´m sure that´s not all of it.

I guess what is described in 1. is close to what the writer ment with Turkish equative.

And finally the question. What is the question? Ok, the question is Isn´t this confusing?

Yes it is, even for native speakers. See for example:

http://www.turkishclass.com/turkish/forum/forumTitle_44592

A very amusing discussion in a brotherly atmosphere. It seems that it´s not only one -ce but more. (What you mentioned about the accentation in the end is a strong proof for that.) Maybe this diminutive thing is separate from the "equative" or adverbial and heaven knows how they are linked to the verbal uses, if they are. From a learner´s point of view I think it´s just important to recognize this variety in meanings.

It certainly does seem something that is learned through usage and experience to know where to place emphasis with the -ce suffix.  I didn´t know the full usage of -ce before reading that or that it had more uses besides the title of different languages. 

I came across a word before posting, from a Türk news feed I have on iGoogle. "Edebiyatçılar" I know "edebiyat" means ´literature´, corect? But without looking it up I had not known it would translate into ´literature teacher´.

Mavili, -ci is a suffix which gives names of professionals, like dişçi ´dentist´, ormancı ´forester´, toptancı ´wholesaler´, röntgenci ´radiographer´. It´s good to learn some suffixes so that you can guess what something might mean if you don´t know for sure.

Thank you Abla. Agreed, I do try to always study the suffixes so they are fresh in my memory, but I am at a point now where sometimes I can recognize the suffix, however the context of the sentence is still unclear to me, and I have to try and break it down. And thats kind of the same for both reading and listening to spoken Turkish.

Actually my grammar book lists them separately. So we have 2 different suffixes indeed. (Hmm at least 2. I don´t have my book with me and I cannot check it up now to tell how many for sure.)

No, you don´t have to bother. Not for me at least. As the matter of fact even writing the question was enough for me, kind of sorting what I had paid attention to.

Very often in agglutinating languages old and frequent suffixes have lost their special characteristics and become alike. This overlapping is sometimes confusing to the learner: you are told that everything is perfectly marked but you need to gain specific knowledge to separate all the small items from each other. Often it goes through trial and error.

 This type of construct you often only meet in official letters. Here it sounds like it has been written by a lawyer (the court´s decision applies to you too).