# İstanbullu vs. İstanbul'lu - [Spelling]



## CapnPrep

Is it correct to write *İstanbul'lu* (with an apostrophe) in some situations? Is this form used differently from *İstanbullu* (no apostrophe)?


----------



## Rallino

When you want to say that someone is from İstanbul, it's never with an apostrophy: *İstanbullu*.

Only in one specific occasion can you possibly spell it with an apostrophy:_* Temiz İstanbul'lu bir Türkiye için siz de katkıda bulunun!
*_In this sentence, the meaning is: _a Turkey that includes a clean İstanbul._ In this respect, _Temiz İstanbul'lu bir Türkiye_ isn't different than _Beyaz çikolatalı bir kek_.


----------



## Rallino

*Moderator's Note: 
You may also want to see a related thread:* _İstanbulludur vs İstanbullu'dur_


----------



## CapnPrep

Rallino said:


> *
> You may also want to see a related thread:* _İstanbulludur vs İstanbullu'dur_


In that thread, Kibele quotes a rule from the TDK:


Kibele said:


> TDK'nın sayfasında ayrılmadığı yazıyor:
> *UYARI :* Özel adlara getirilen yapım ekleri, çokluk eki ve bunlardan sonra gelen diğer ekler kesmeyle ayrılmaz: [examples]


In other words, no apostrophe is used when a word-forming suffix or the plural suffix is added to a proper noun, and any further suffixes are also added with no apostrophe.

So if I understand correctly, _-LI_ is considered to be a word-forming suffix (_yapım eki_) in the noun _İstanbullu _(= person from Istanbul), but a case suffix (_durum eki_) in Rallino's example _temiz İstanbul'lu _(= including a clean Istanbul). Is this distinction always easy to make? Because from another point of view, we have the same suffix in both cases, with a common abstract meaning (something like "characterized/identified by X").

Is the apostrophe required in _İstanbullu bir arkadaş_ "a friend from Istanbul"?


----------



## Rallino

My example was quite an unusual one, I admit. I only gave it because you had specifically asked whether or not _İstanbullu _is always written without an apostrophe. Theoretically the answer is no, but in practical that sentence (temiz İstanbul'lu) is quite hard to come across. 

_İstanbullu bir arkadaş _is without an apostrophe.

Below, I have given the two possibly weirdest sentences in Turkish. Just so you can see the difference. (I'd wager that no-one would say them.)

İstanbul'lu şarkılar dinliyorum. = _I'm listening to songs that have Istanbul in it._
İstanbullu şarkılar dinliyorum. = _I'm listening to songs that were composed in Istanbul. (??)_

They sound so terrible that I can hardly make sense, but I couldn't find any better example to show the difference. Maybe someone else can. 


> [...]
> Is this distinction always easy to make? Because from another point of  view, we have the same suffix in both cases, with a common abstract  meaning (something like "characterized/identified by X").


We never really think about whether or not that _-LI_ is used as a yapım eki, actually. But maybe a simpler way to think could be that when it is a yapım eki, the thing possesses other stuff; and when it is a case suffix: it is possessed.

*O İstanbullu.* (He comes from Istanbul. Think of it like: _Istanbul possesses him._)
*İstanbul'lu bir cümle kur.* (Make a sentence with 'Istanbul'. Think of it like:_ Make a sentence that possesses Istanbul. --> Istanbul is possessed by the sentence._)

Oh dear ... Please tell me if what I am saying doesn't make any sense! I'm litterally inventing rules here!


----------



## CapnPrep

Rallino said:


> Oh dear ... Please tell me if what I am saying doesn't make any sense! I'm litterally inventing rules here!


Your examples are very useful, Rallino! But I think it would also be possible to understand _O İstanbullu_ as "He possesses Istanbul", i.e. "He has Istanbul inside him, he is Istanbul-flavored…" No? From that point of view it's not so different from _çikolatalı_. 

Maybe I should mention that what first inspired this thread was a Turkish restaurant in the United States called "Istanbul'lu".


----------



## gnaaye

CapnPrep said:


> Your examples are very useful, Rallino! But I think it would also be possible to understand _O İstanbullu_ as "He possesses Istanbul", i.e. "He has Istanbul inside him, he is Istanbul-flavored…" No? From that point of view it's not so different from _çikolatalı_.
> 
> Maybe I should mention that what first inspired this thread was a Turkish restaurant in the United States called "Istanbul'lu".


"O Istanbullu" would be understood as "He is from Istanbul" by pretty much all native Turkish speakers.


----------

