[sent8] question about interpretation of tense

[jonorthwash]

We are having trouble interpreting the tense/aspect and epistemic modality of sentence (8).

(8) Sude üç saattir ofiste yokmuş, Ayşe de evde değilmiş.

The following seem like possibilities:

1. past: [At some point in the past] Sude was not in the office for three hours, and Ayşe was not at home. [It's possible that they're in those places right now but there was a period when they weren't.]
2. mirative: [I just noticed that] Sude hasn't been in the office for three hours, and Ayşe hasn't been at home either. [They are not in those places right now either.]
3. past perfect: [At some point in the past] Sude hadn't been in the office for three hours, and Ayşe was not at home. [It's possible that they returned after that.]

See also issue #4 for our confusion about how conjunction works.

[coltekin]

Without context, my first interpretation is (2). If the context sets the time of the event to past, then (3) is also fine:

Anneleri hastaneye kaldırıldığında çocuklarına ulaşmaya çalıştık. (Ama) Sude üç saattir ofiste yokmuş, Ayşe de evde değilmiş. 'When their mother hospitalized, we tried to reach her children, (but) Sude hadn't been in the office for three hours, and Ayşe was not at home.'

I think I cannot get an imperfect reading for the first clause as long as -tir is attached to the temporal expression. I need a reference point (now, or in the past) that determines the end of the time period of "(last) three hours". Since they are conjoined, I would also be more in favor of interpreting the second clause as perfect ('Ayşe has/had not been at home').

Unrelated note: I am not sure (2) is mirative. Evidential marker with a reference point in time means it is newly acquired information, but I am not sure it is "unexpected". I'd call this simply present perfect. (This may also be my lack of understanding of mirative.).