So many Turkish verbs are a combination of a noun and and auxiliary like etmek, vermek, olmak. In these verbs all the meaning is carried by the noun and the verb is needed only as a hanger of grammatical elements. Often they are so tightly joined that nothing seems to touch the noun: it stays in the same form always and the combination works as a unit in the sentence.

         Banka tazminat ödemeyi kabul etti.

         Evde kalmasını tavsiye ettim.

I have noticed that this is typical in the cases where the noun is an Arabicism which hasn´t adapted into Turkish language as an independent lexeme.

What is causing bigger trouble is that this group of verbs (I wish to find a word for them) is not homogenous. The most difficult cases for a learner in my opinion are those where the noun acts as an independent word also. I mean like devam etmek, karar vermek, söz vermek, farkına varmak, cevap vermek, ihtiyaç olmak etc. I can somehow handle them if they govern a simple noun (a dictionary helps to choose the correct case ending) but as soon as a complete sentence is inlayed as their modifier the trouble begins. It´s hard to choose 1) if the noun itself has to undergo changes and b) what is the relation between the inlayed sentence and the noun (adjectival modifier, izafet/compound: definite with genitive or undefinite with nominative).

For instance, fark seems to act as an independent noun in farkına varmak ´to notice´. The preceeding participle takes a genitive:

         PKK savaşı kaybettiğinin farkına vardı.

I think this represents the other end of the continuum where the noun part conjugates and governs modifiers as a normal constituent, though at the same time part of this idiom, farkina varmak.

I´m lost also if the noun of this combination denotes a speech act, like in cevap or söz vermek where the noun looks like the usual object. But is it treated like one?

         Sana söz verdim. (Why is there no accusative ending in söz  -  or is it indefinite?)

         Gelmeye söz verdim. (You what??)

I´m sorry, my question is not well organized and it gives a bad headache. But it´s the best I can do right now. I hope it makes some sort of sense anyway. Maybe someone knows a good article which could tie these problems together somehow?

 Abla

I guess I am really sorry but the answer is "they just are and you have to learn what goes with what".

Farkına varmak: you just have to think of it as a phrase.

Söz verdim: the same.

Don´t try to unpack why one is fark + ına + varmak and the other is söz+vermek.

You will see that the mistakes I make in Turkish are usually in the areas of "things that just are different and you have to learn them" like endings on the previous noun.

For example:

karar vermak: to decide

karar verdi mi? is the Q using the compound infinitive.

But you can also say kararına verdi mi? Has he made his decision? which is a little bit different in English as well from has he decided. It kind of puts a bit more emphasis on the decision being his personal one in English, and I guess the Turkish has the same.

I understand what you mean, MarioninTurkey. Something is telling me in the back of my head that these are lexical questions in the end. I mean when you learn a new verb it belongs to the package to learn also how it is used and what it governs (like in every language). I guess what makes it look more difficult is that these duplexes are very usual and often basic in their meaning. (Maybe my question should be formed again: why is there two words in the place where I got used to seeing one?)

What do you mean by auxiliary verb? I believe you talk with the terms relevant for English grammar.

Etmek, olmak are not different from the other verbs in that they are used with the same suffixes just like any other verb.

And they can be touched sometimes:

Evde kalmasını tavsiye ettim.

Evde kalması için ettiğim tavsiye. = The lead I gave for staying home

Yes Arabic words sometimes function as noun clause without using any verb.

Bankanın tazminat ödemeyi kabulü = Bankanın tazminat ödemeyi kabul etmesi

Evde kalmasını tavsiyemi = Evde kalmasını tavsiye etmemi

Yes they are problematic for learners. I think you should learn them one by one over time.

And farkına varmak should be excluded from the list you call auxiliaries. It should be in the form:

X-in farkına varmak = To reach to/ (notice/get) the difference of X

Sana söz verdim.

Yes it is indefinite and you should treat it as a unit. In that case you cannot move it to any other place in a sentence.

But:

Sana x-in sözünü veriyorum.

Now it´s definite and you can move it away from the verb if you want:

x-in sözünü sana veriyorum.

Thanks, si++. I feel like a plucked hen.

Certainly, that is a great way to describe the little nuiances that a native Türk picks up after growing up around the language. And I was confused, at first, about the use of the auxillary verbs. Now, when they are needed for a verb that I am sure, I usually won´t have trouble with the correct suffix.

However, there are still many words I don´t know in Türkçe, but I had also learened that, etmek and olmak are typically for "imported" words and ones of Arabic origin? And some verbs already have an auxillary verb attached like "hissetmek" which are conjugated like any other verb if I understand correctly.

I don´t think it´s a good definition to call verbs like etmek, olmak, etc. as auxiliary verb.

First of all what do you mean by "auxiliary"? I got curious and searched a little.

From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_verb):

In linguistics, an auxiliary verb is a verb that gives further semantic or syntactic information about a main or full verb.

OK so when you use the term auxiliary verb, you should be also talking about a main verb. But wait a minute, if you call olmak, etmek, etc. "auxiliary verb" what is the main verb then?

Olmak, etmek are not different from any other verbs as far as the grammatical conjugation is concerned. They are used with the same suffixes for any tense. So they are not a different class of verbs in Turkish.

Their usage with various words must be learned separately. Just as we learn English verb usages with various prepositions:

give up

give away

get out

get away with

get along

come in

hold up

hold on

be in for

come up with

etc.

Turkish loans some words from another language. When you want to use it as a verb, you make use of "etmek" or "yapmak"/"olmak". Some examples with some English loans in Turkish:

Flirt (noun) = flört

To flirt (verb) = flört etmek

Check (noun) = çek

To check (verb) = çek etmek

Risk (noun) = risk

To risk (verb) = risk etmek

panic (noun) = panik

To panic (verb) = panik yapmak

To be panicked (verb) = panik olmak

Check-up (noun) = çekap

To check (something) up = çekap yapmak

To be checked up = çekap olmak

I agree it was not a good idea to call them auxiliaries. Especially the English concept of auxiliary is misleading because verbs like must and can have gone so far in their grammaticalization and lost most of their conjugation in this path. If you try to look for something comparable in Turkish it has already turned into morphological endings, the forms of the old ermek maybe?

What I ment is something like a helping verb, a grammatical hanger. In this job the regularity and the full conjugation of etmek, yapmak, vermek are an advantage.

The old ermek was not different either as far as conjugation is concerned. Its remnants make it clear:

er-di -> idi -> -(y)di

er-miş -> imiş -> -(y)miş

er-se -> ise -> -(y)se

er-mez -> imez (in Uzbek&Uyghur)

er-gen -> iken -> -(y)ken

But this is how auxiliaries are born. They are ordinary verbs in the beginning and then they adapt more and more grammatical functions. In the end they lose their own special characters and begin to mainly serve the main verb. Besides, auxiliary as a linguistic term is not a yes or no question, its more like a continuum from relatively full verbs of the lexicon into transfixed grammatical elements. German or Swedish modal auxiliaries, for instance are not as grammaticalized as those of English.