An influential proposal offered and defended in a series of studies (e.g. Bošković 2008, 2012, 2013) and joint work with others, is Bošković’s suggestion that there exists a typological divide between languages whose “traditional” noun phrases (NPs) are actually determiner phrases (DPs), such as English, and languages whose noun phrases extend only to NP. In a study related to this body of work, Bošković and Şener (2014) claim that Turkish is an NP-language, and that it therefore exhibits the properties which Bošković’s system would ascribe to it. They further posit a structure of the NP from which (at least some of) the relevant properties of Turkish would follow. Kornfilt (2017) has addressed some of these properties, illustrating the lack of the claimed alignment between them and the assumed DP- versus NP-nature of English, German, and Turkish, respectively. The present paper aims to address the more interesting part of Bošković and Şener (2014), namely the part where certain additional (claimed) properties of the Turkish “traditional NP” are made to follow from an NP-structure (rather than simply positing a correlation between certain properties and a claimed status as an NP-language, as had been done in the parts of their paper which had been addressed in Kornfilt 2017). I show that, at best, the relevant properties can be explained in other ways, and, at worst, that the “ NPhypothesis” actually makes wrong predictions with respect to Turkish. My main objective here is not to insist that Turkish is a DP-language, but rather to show that the phenomena claimed by Bošković and Şener to characterize Turkish as an NP-language do not succeed in establishing such a characterization.