# Neriman'ın otomobili olacağını söyler



## jbionic2010

Please, first of all, read the text from the attached picture
https://photos.app.goo.gl/horztcw4Q61dw9U62

The question is about how to explain the morphological structure of  *olacağını,* which could be one of the following
ol<v><part_acak><p2s><acc>
ol<v><part_acak><p2s><acc><3s>
ol<v><part_acak><p3s><acc>
ol<v><part_acak><p3s><acc><3s>
ol<v><vn_acak><p2s><acc>
ol<v><vn_acak><p2s><acc><3s>
ol<v><vn_acak><p3s><acc>
ol<v><vn_acak><p3s><acc><3s>

I do understand that affix *-sı* in *parası* is due to izafet connection with word Neriman'ın.
I also understand that the very last affix _*-ı *_<acc> in *olacağını  *is because of the transitive verb söyler.
But what is the reason for having affix _*-ı *_<p3s> in *olacağ-ı-(n-buffer)ı*, I wonder? Does this have anything to do with highlighting HER (Neriman's) state of wealth as a person to whom the statement refers?


----------



## CHovek

Neriman'ın olacağ-*ı*-nı=  Neriman'ın çalışkan olacağ-ı yok.(She won't overcome her laziness) , Neriman'ın nereye gideceğ*-i-ni *bilmiyorum.(I don't know where she's headed) Senin olacağ-ı-nı,Benim olacağ-ı-mı, Onun olacağ-ı-nı, Onların olacağ-ı-nı(or olacaklar-ı-nı)...

Neriman'ın kalem-*i*-ni
Neriman'ın para-*sı*-nı

For present tense = Neriman'ın olduğ-u-nu

I hope these simple examples will jog some memory.


----------



## Rallino

What CHovek said works in some contexts, but not here.

In *Neriman'ın parası olacağını*, "olacağı" doesn't refer to Neriman. Neriman isn't becoming anything. Rather, it's _Neriman'*ın* para*sı-**(nın) *olacağ*ı*nı_. But we wouldn't add the "nın" there.

Normally this sentence is: _Neriman'ın parası *olacak*_. However, when it's the noun clause, the verb turns into _-diği/-eceği_ form: _Neriman'ın parası *olacağını* söyler._


----------



## jbionic2010

Thank you, Rallino.


----------



## jbionic2010

*Rallino*,

If you permit, I have one more question for you about the use of genitive affix *-in*

https://photos.app.goo.gl/zNqn3sJlrKlX7SL33

In the text shown on above picture how comes that in the first highlighted sentence there is no affix *ının* (<p3s> + <gen>) attached to masal, unlike the last highlighted sentence, in which masal has affix <p1s>+<gen> attached to it?


----------



## Rallino

_Masal kahramanı _is an indefinite noun complement; where masal is not a specific story, but more like an adjective. (If it was German, it would be one word: "Masalkahramanı"; and if it was Russian, it would be an adjective-noun group: "Масальный кахраман".)

We do this a lot when putting objects into subgroups, for example: _Ev anahtarı _is _the_ _house key. _It's not "the key of the house", which would be _ev*in* anahtarı. _Ultimately they are pretty much the same thing, but when you say _evin_, it's stressing the house, not the key. You're talking about the key of the HOUSE, rather than that of the car.

Now. When you add an adjective to an indefinite noun complement, it always goes before the first noun, and always refers to the* second *noun. So if you say: _güzel masal kahramanı_, it's the hero that's beautiful; not the story. Or _beyaz ev anahtarı_, it's the key that is white; not the house.

(Off-topic: Note also that you can't put adjectives in between. So *_masal güzel kahramanı _and *_ev beyaz anahtarı_ are invalid constructions.)

If you want the adjective to refer to the first noun, then you're defining it. It can no longer be indefinite, so you have to add the genitive: _güzel masalın kahramanı _and _beyaz evin anahtarı._
Same goes for adding possessives. If you add _my, his, our_ etc; then the first noun becomes definite. It's not any story out there. It's your story. So you have to add the genitive: _benim masalım*ın* kahramanı_.


----------



## jbionic2010

When I compare your previous post


> Rather, it's _Neriman'*ın* para*sı-(nın) *olacağ*ı*nı_. *But we wouldn't add the "nın" there.*


with the sentence from my last picture


> Masalım*ın* kahraman*ı*-*nın* kim olduğ*u*nu


I feel kinda baffled: why do Turkish add -*nın *in the second case, but not add it in the first example?


----------



## Rallino

In some cases, we don't add the -nin. I can't tell you why. For instance, if olduğu/olacağı stands for "that *it is*", we add the -nin, for example:
O kadın*ın* çok güzel olduğunu biliyorum. - I know that that woman is very beautiful. (This is the fusion of _(i)_ O_ kadın çok güzel. (ii) Ben bunu biliyorum._)

If, on the other hand, _olduğu/olacağı _stands for "that *there is*", we don't add genitive:
Orada çok güzel bir kadın olduğunu biliyorum. - I know that there is a very beautiful woman over there. (This is the fusion of _(i)_ _Orada çok güzel bir kadın var. (ii) Ben bunu biliyorum._)

Since Turkish doesn't have a separate verb for "to have", we use the "there is/there will be" construction again.
Neriman'ın çok parası var. -> Neriman'ın çok parası olduğunu biliyorum.
Neriman'ın çok parası olacak. -> Neriman'ın çok parası olacağını biliyorum.

Compare:
Neriman'ın parası*nın* bankada olduğunu biliyorum. (I know that Neriman's money is in the bank.)


----------

