What I understand with pluperfect is a tense that denotes an action which has taken place before a reference point which is in the past and an action which is completely finished.

I have a couple of problems concerning pluperfect tense:

1. I find two different formings of pluperfect in Turkish. One is inferential + di-past: Öğretmen işi bırakmıştı. The other one has a double -di-suffix: Öğretmen işi bıraktıydı. What is the difference? Is it about the hearsay meaning of –miş-?

2. The other question has its roots in my defective school English. When the second conditional or past conditional would + have + -ed is used in the main clause, I learned that if-clause automatically takes pluperfect tense. I have understood this is what English syntax wants and taken it as a rule without thinking if this pluperfect actually always hits the demands of pluperfect tense as I described them in my first sentence. This has worked quite well until I started studying Turkish conditional sentences using English as a transit language.

I have troubles with sentences like

         If he had worked harder he would have passed the exam.

The if-clause looks like there is a pluperfect tense in it, and the ‘working’ even denotes an action that preceded ‘passing of the exam’ which also happened in the past. But does it really demand a pluperfect structure in Turkish thinking where there is basically only one past tense (and more details  -  when they are needed  -  are created by combining suffixes together)? In other words, could the if-clause be translated simply Daha çalışsaydi or does it need more complicated structures like Daha çok çalıştı idiyse? (I don’t know in which order all the suffixes should be but the point is how many times –di-.)

I don´t know if you have seen this post but it has a very similar sentence and it may also help you.

Thank you, Henry. This looks excellent. I have this bad habit of splitting my question into the Forum and letting other people search for me. Maybe it´s because I was the only child... I hope it was useful for you, too.

Bırakmıştı and bıraktıydı are not so different. If you ask native speakers they cannot easily come up with an explanation First of all "di-di" form (called di´li geçmişin hikayesi) is not very commonly used. Some people even claim it is not proper to use it. Anyway I thought now, and I think the only difference is this:

When you say "bırakmıştı", you might have seen that yourself in the past, or you might have heard it. It doesn´t differentiate. When you say "bıraktıydı" this implies more that you have witnessed that situation in the past (attestative), and you are emphasizing that this happened for sure.

Anyway,don´t think to much about this and use "miş-ti" (called miş´li geçmiş zamanın hikayesi) more often

I sometimes hear some people use "di-di" form. Personally, I don´t think I have ever used it in my entire life, not even once. So it´s not my trait.

I am excited about the thread that Henry recommended. There is some information in erdinc´s posts that I have never seen before. Actually I made an abbreviation of the rules that were explained there:

Examples:

I Buzu ısıtırsan, erir. Yağmur yağarsa, ıslanırsın.

II Acele etmezsen, treni kaçıracağız. Yağmur yağarsa ıslanacaksın.

III  Erken yatsaydın, yorgun olmayacaktın. Yağmur yağsaydı, ıslanacaktın.

IV Yağmur yağsaydı, ıslanırdın/ıslanmış olurdun/ıslanmıştın. Daha çok çalışsaydın, sınavı geçerdin/sınavı geçmiş olurdun/sınavı geçmiştin.

V Eğer okulda daha sıkı çalışsaydım, şimdi daha iyi bir işim olurdu. Haritaya baksaydık, kaybolmuş olmazdık.

The biggest surprise to me were the tenses of the main clause (which I always used to guess before).

Learning Turkish conditional sentences can be very much disturbed by the influence of English structures.

Note that -di is optional in if clause:

I Buzu ısıtırsan, erir. Yağmur yağarsa, ıslanırsın.

II Acele etmezsen, treni kaçıracağız. Yağmur yağarsa ıslanacaksın. 

III  Erken yatsaydın (yatsan), yorgun olmayacaktın. Yağmur yağsaydı, ıslanacaktın.

IV Yağmur yağsaydı (yağsa), ıslanırdın/ıslanmış olurdun/ıslanmıştın. Daha çok çalışsaydın, sınavı geçerdin/sınavı geçmiş olurdun/sınavı geçmiştin.

V Eğer okulda daha sıkı çalışsaydım (çalışsam), şimdi daha iyi bir işim olurdu. Haritaya baksaydık, kaybolmuş olmazdık.

It´s possible to drop "idi" in if clause, because it´s also present in the main clause.

it´s like saying a*c + b*c = (a+b)*c

Thank you, dilliduduk, for answering.

Suppose the if-clause is of the type ´there is, there are´. In which cases does var or yok have to be replaced with ol-, olma-? I see both olsaydı and varsaydı, olmasaydı and yoksaydı and I don´t know where the border is.

For real condition (not hypothetical) of simple present and past and hearsay, you should use var/yok

if there is x = x var ise

if there is not x = x yok ise

if there was x yesterday = dün x vardı ise

if there was not x yesterday = dün x yoktu ise

if there is said to be x = x var imiş ise

if there is not said to be x = x yokmuş ise

if there was said to be x yesterday = dün x varmış (idi) ise

if there was not said to be x yesterday = dün x yokmuş (idi) ise