Akkusativ oder dativ?
Steve
I have been having problems for such a long time understanding when to
use one and not the other.
The following examples are clear and I understand the differences
He hangs the picture on the wall -Akk
The picture is hanging on the wall -Dat
In these examples we have a movement. The Akk is a direction,
something is happening to the picture. The dativ example indicates
that the object is stationary.
Now my problems with the next two examples:
1) Ich habe keine Zeit für JEDES einzelne Kind in meiner Klasse -Akk
2) Ich bin voller Liebe zu MEINER Familie -Dat
1) Why is the child object in the akk case. I know the explanation for
akk is that it is the Direct object in the sentence, that the verb is
acting upon it but I don't see in this example how haben is acting
upon the child.
2) If this was Akk I could understand as I can almost see that the
subject is acting upon the object, however the object (the family) is
seemingly the indirect object.
If someone could spare the time to help me understand this I would be
externally grateful. I really need a simple explanation(s). Saying
that Akk is used on the direct object and vice versa for Dative does
not help me as I do not understand this.
Many thanks for your time
Steve
Einde O'Callaghan
>
> Hi,
> I have been having problems for such a long time understanding when to
> use one and not the other.
>
> The following examples are clear and I understand the differences
>
> He hangs the picture on the wall -Akk
> The picture is hanging on the wall -Dat
>
> In these examples we have a movement. The Akk is a direction,
> something is happening to the picture. The dativ example indicates
> that the object is stationary.
>
> Now my problems with the next two examples:
>
> 1) Ich habe keine Zeit für JEDES einzelne Kind in meiner Klasse -Akk
> 2) Ich bin voller Liebe zu MEINER Familie -Dat
>
> 1) Why is the child object in the akk case. I know the explanation for
> akk is that it is the Direct object in the sentence, that the verb is
> acting upon it but I don't see in this example how haben is acting
> upon the child.
"für jedes Kind" - "Kind" is in the Akkusativ because "für" always
governs (I think that's the term) the Akkusativ
> 2) If this was Akk I could understand as I can almost see that the
> subject is acting upon the object, however the object (the family) is
> seemingly the indirect object.
>
"zu meiner Familie" - "Familie" is in the Dativ because "zu" always
governs the Dativ.
Gruß, Einde
Michael Hemmer
> I have been having problems for such a long time understanding when to
> use one and not the other.
>
> The following examples are clear and I understand the differences
>
> He hangs the picture on the wall -Akk
> The picture is hanging on the wall -Dat
>
> In these examples we have a movement. The Akk is a direction,
> something is happening to the picture. The dativ example indicates
> that the object is stationary.
>
> Now my problems with the next two examples:
>
> 1) Ich habe keine Zeit für JEDES einzelne Kind in meiner Klasse -Akk
> 2) Ich bin voller Liebe zu MEINER Familie -Dat
>
> 1) Why is the child object in the akk case. I know the explanation for
> akk is that it is the Direct object in the sentence, that the verb is
> acting upon it but I don't see in this example how haben is acting
> upon the child.
> 2) If this was Akk I could understand as I can almost see that the
> subject is acting upon the object, however the object (the family) is
> seemingly the indirect object.
There are actually *no* direct or indirect objects in your examples (see
below for these), only prepositional objects.
In German, just as in other languages with a well-developed case system,
each preposition governs (= requires) a certain case:
für --> accusative: Ich habe keine Zeit *für* jedes Kind.
zu --> dative: Ich bin voller Liebe *zu* meiner Familie.
Sometimes, usage varies:
trotz --> genitive (but increasingly often the dative is used)
wegen --> genitive (or dative, just as above)
Some prepositions, however, regularly take two different cases depending
on the context, and that's where the moving/stationary distinction comes
into play:
an --> accusative (moving): "Er hängt das Bild an die Wand." - Wohin?
--> dative (stationary): "Das Bild hängt an der Wand." - Wo?
in --> accusative (moving): "Er geht ins (= in das) Haus." - Wohin?
--> dative (stationary): "Er ist im Haus." - Wo?
Prepositions of this class include, besides the ones mentioned above,
and with no completeness intended:
auf
unter
über
neben
vor
hinter
Please note that the moving/stationary distinction does *not* apply in
*any* other case, e.g.
aus --> dative (though "aus dem Haus" definitely implies a movement!)
von --> dative (despite "Ich komme gerade vom Markt"!)
For those prepositions that take only one case, it's a simple matter of
learning by heart. Anyway, in most cases it's more difficult to know
what preposition to use (depending on the verb and on the object) than
to figure out what case is required by that very preposition.
> If someone could spare the time to help me understand this I would be
> externally grateful. I really need a simple explanation(s). Saying
> that Akk is used on the direct object and vice versa for Dative does
> not help me as I do not understand this.
After all, this is a different issue not at all related to prepositional
objects discussed above. But *as a rule of thumb*, an accusative (or
direct) object in German corresponds to a simple object in English
(without any preposition), while the dative (indirect) object
corresponds to "to" plus object:
Ich (subj.) gebe (verb) meinem Bruder (indirect) das Buch (direct).
I (subj.) give (verb) the book (direct) *to* my brother (indirect).
There are, of course, numerous exceptions :-(
Michael
dwstott
> The picture is hanging on the wall -Dat
>
> In these examples we have a movement. The Akk is a direction,
> something is happening to the picture. The dativ example indicates
> that the object is stationary.
In addition to the responses given by Einde and Michael, there is
another consideration. Even when using prepositions that can take
either dative or accusative, the "rule" is not entirely merely
accusative = "direction" and dative = "stationary". Generally
speaking, with the either/or prepositions the issue is whether the
"action" indicated by the verb begins in one place and ends up in
another (namely, whatever is the object of the preposition) or remains
or "takes place" in the same place, namely (again), the object of the
preposition.
An obvious example of the first is "Sie gehen in das Haus," where the
action of "going" begins in one place (outside the house) and ends up
in a different place (namely, the object of the preposition: the
house). Hence accusative.
An obvious example of the second is "Sie sind in dem Haus," where the
action of "being" remains or "takes place" in the same place, namely,
the object of the preposition. Hence dative.
The distinction to which I am referring, however, is illustrated by
the famous biblical passage Gen. 3:8: "Und sie [Adam und Eva] hörten
Gott den Herrn, wie er im Garten ging, als der Tag kühl geworden war."
Here "in" takes the dative because the action of the verb, God's
"going (about)" remains in the same place, namely, the object of the
preposition, the garden. The verb implies plenty of action and even
direction, but not to a different place from where it started, namely,
the garden.
doug
Helmut Richter
[excellent explanation snipped, except for the passages I want to
comment on]
> Some prepositions, however, regularly take two different cases depending
> on the context, and that's where the moving/stationary distinction comes
> into play:
> an --> accusative (moving): "Er hängt das Bild an die Wand." - Wohin?
> --> dative (stationary): "Das Bild hängt an der Wand." - Wo?
> in --> accusative (moving): "Er geht ins (= in das) Haus." - Wohin?
> --> dative (stationary): "Er ist im Haus." - Wo?
In the case of "in", the distiction matches the distinction of English
"in" from "into". Sometimes, however, the perspective is different:
The chair belongs in the corner.
static: The chair should be in the corner.
but
Der Stuhl gehört in die Ecke.
dynamic (hence acc.): The chair should be put into the corner.
and this irrespective of whether the chair is currently in the corner.
It applies also in a figurative sense:
This does not belong here.
Das gehört nicht hierher.
where "das" can also be a contribution to an argument.
> After all, this is a different issue not at all related to prepositional
> objects discussed above. But *as a rule of thumb*, an accusative (or
> direct) object in German corresponds to a simple object in English
> (without any preposition), while the dative (indirect) object
> corresponds to "to" plus object:
> Ich (subj.) gebe (verb) meinem Bruder (indirect) das Buch (direct).
> I (subj.) give (verb) the book (direct) *to* my brother (indirect).
> There are, of course, numerous exceptions :-(
When the verb has two objects, in at least 90% of the cases, one is
dative and one accusative, and thinking of "to" or "for" identifies
the dative one. Verbs with two accusative objects are rare (look for
"Welche Verben können mit einem doppelten Akkusativ stehen?" in
http://faql.de/desdfaql.txt). A bit confusing could be verbs that
require only a dative object, e.g. "helfen".
Helmut Richter
Diedrich Ehlerding
> Hi,
> I have been having problems for such a long time understanding when to
> use one and not the other.
>
> The following examples are clear and I understand the differences
>
> He hangs the picture on the wall -Akk
> The picture is hanging on the wall -Dat
In this case, the german preposition "an" may take two cases, depending
on the meaning. There is a similar distinction in English with "in" and
"into", which is BTW hard to leran for germans - they have only one
preposition here, but two cases. I assume that some time ago there were
two English üprepositions "on" and "onto" as well.
>
> Now my problems with the next two examples:
>
> 1) Ich habe keine Zeit für JEDES einzelne Kind in meiner Klasse -Akk
> 2) Ich bin voller Liebe zu MEINER Familie -Dat
>
> 1) Why is the child object in the akk case. I know the explanation for
> akk is that it is the Direct object in the sentence, that the verb is
> acting upon it but I don't see in this example how haben is acting
> upon the child.
This has nothing to do with direct or indirect object; the case depends
on the preposition. Sorry to say it - you must learn by heart which
case follows which preposition.
As for direct and indirect objects: it is correct that direct objects
require an accusative case and indirect objects a dative case. Unlike
English, German distinguishes these cases formally (although for many
nouns the distinction is not visible, but pronouns have clear distinct
accusative and dative forms). English distinguishes direct and indirect
objects by a preposition "to" - but German doesnt.
> Saying
> that Akk is used on the direct object and vice versa for Dative does
> not help me as I do not understand this.
Let me try to give a short example.
"Hans hat seiner Schwester ein Buch gegeben"
^^^^^^^1^^^^^^^ ^^^2^^^
(1) is an indirect object, (2) is a direct object. Cf. English
"John gave a book to his sister".
^^2^^ ^^^^^1^^^^^^^
Apart from the formal distinction "accusative case" or "dative case", it
is important to know that only sentences with direct objects can be put
into a passive voice. In the example above, there is only one German
passive voice:
"Ein Buch wurde von Hans seiner Schwester gegeben" (sounds horrible,
noone would use it, but I dont want to invent a new example), whereas
English allows two passive voice constructions:
"A book was given by John to his sister" or "John's sister was given a
book by her brother" (sound equally horrible, too, serve just to
illustrate the difference).
Again, you must learn by heart which verbs have a direct object and
which can have only an indirect object. (Some few even require a
possesive case object, but you shouldnt take them into account in order
to learn to understand this).
So, in short:
- some verbs require direct objects, some other require indirect objects
- every preposition needs the proper case of the noun or pronoun which
it refers to
- all this stuff must be learned by heart :-(
Diedrich
--
pgp-Key (RSA) 1024/09B8C0BD
fingerprint = 2C 49 FF B2 C4 66 2D 93 6F A1 FF 10 16 59 96 F3
HTML-Mail wird ungelesen entsorgt.
Michael Hemmer
> Even when using prepositions that can take
> either dative or accusative, the "rule" is not entirely merely
> accusative = "direction" and dative = "stationary". Generally
> speaking, with the either/or prepositions the issue is whether the
> "action" indicated by the verb begins in one place and ends up in
> another (namely, whatever is the object of the preposition) or remains
> or "takes place" in the same place, namely (again), the object of the
> preposition.
You are quite right. In the light of your argument, I must admit that my
definition of the accusative indicating "motion" should be precised to
mean "directed motion", thus incorporating Steve's original notion of
"direction". "Stationary" as well is only half of the truth, since it
obviously cannot explain the type of "motion in the same place" given in
your examples.
> The distinction to which I am referring, however, is illustrated by
> the famous biblical passage Gen. 3:8: "Und sie [Adam und Eva] hörten
> Gott den Herrn, wie er im Garten ging, als der Tag kühl geworden war."
I don't consider biblical language (to be more specific, the language of
the most commonly used translations) too good an example for the use of
words. "In <dative> gehen" wouldn't be used in contemporary German, and
I'd even go as far as to say that it's wrong. However, if you add
"umher-" to "gehen", or if you replace it by "spazieren gehen", this is
perfectly good German and still illustrates your point very well: use of
the dative along with a verb of motion.
> Here "in" takes the dative because the action of the verb, God's
> "going (about)" remains in the same place, namely, the object of the
> preposition, the garden. The verb implies plenty of action and even
> direction,
I don't agree with "to go about" indicating a direction. While every
single step has doubtlessly a direction, this does not apply to the
action as a whole.
> but not to a different place from where it started, namely,
> the garden.
Not only does the action end where it started out - anything that
happens inbetween happens in the same place (namely, the garden).
Michael
Steve
pretend that I am yet comfortable with this but I at least have more
of an insight.
I understand that some prepositions MUST ONLY have akk or dat
following them. this is clear and is just(?) a case of learning each.
I also understand that it is possible to have either following
[Akk/Dat]. However this is where it gets tricky.
I will study the replies and may come back.
Once again Many thanks
Steve
Oliver Neukum
> I'd just like to thank those that took the time to reply. I will not
> pretend that I am yet comfortable with this but I at least have more
> of an insight.
>
> I understand that some prepositions MUST ONLY have akk or dat
> following them. this is clear and is just(?) a case of learning each.
> I also understand that it is possible to have either following
> [Akk/Dat]. However this is where it gets tricky.
Well, there's a lot of regularity there.
Prepositions can be grouped.
1. Prepositions of place
an, auf, neben, unter, ... - take accusative or dative, depending
on the difference you stated
exception: bei - only to express place, hence only dative
nach, zu - always indicate direction but take dative
2. Prepositions of origin
aus, von, seit - take dative
3. Anything else (mostly abstract stuff) - totally mixed, you
have to learn by heart
The only place where a simple accusative without preposition
expresses direction is in the fixed expression: Geh Heim!
HTH
Oliver
Michael Hemmer
> The only place where a simple accusative without preposition
> expresses direction is in the fixed expression: Geh Heim!
This is the imperative mood (singular) of the verb "heimgehen". As with
mosr separable verbs, the prefix (heim) cannot be distinguished from an
ordinary adverb once the verb is split. However, it has its roots in an
accusative form of the noun "Heim" (the home), though only a dictionary
will tell you that. (At least I did not know before. Maybe my fault.)
Michael
Einde O'Callaghan
dative.
Gruß, Einde O'Callaghan
dwstott
> I don't consider biblical language (to be more specific, the
language of
> the most commonly used translations) too good an example for the use
of
> words.
<Luther dreht sich im Grabe um> ;-)
Why not? Without the development the language underwent in biblical
usage, it wouldn't be what it is today. Moreover countless words
were, for lack of a better expression, "semantically cast" for the
first time in any enduring fashion through such biblical translations.
But even those reasons need not be adduced. And in any event, biblical
usage ranges from very archaic to very contemporary (see the newer
translations) and everything in between, so citing "biblical language"
as a consistently (esp. diachronically) unified entity is a chimera in
any case. There is nothing any more illegitimae or less useful about
biblical usage than about that in any other specialized area, and it
certainly has had an almost inestimable effect on the development of
the language. That it is not (always) "what one says" in daily
language (which is I assume what you really mean) is beside the point.
What if someone picks up a bible and comes to this sentence?
<End of rant; Luther beruhigt sich etwas>
> "In <dative> gehen" wouldn't be used in contemporary German,
Nor did my example imply that it would be, nor did the original
question ask specifically about contemporary vernacular.
> and
> I'd even go as far as to say that it's wrong.
<Luther dreht sich wieder und stöhnt>
It's not wrong, it's merely different than what someone would say in
ordinary, everyday language. But if everything that deviates from the
vernacular is "wrong," poetic usage is in *particularly* deep trouble.
> However, if you add
> "umher-" to "gehen", or if you replace it by "spazieren gehen", this
is
> perfectly good German and still illustrates your point very well:
use of
> the dative along with a verb of motion.
Which is why I added "about" to my English translation, to illustrate
the point.
> > Here "in" takes the dative because the action of the verb, God's
> > "going (about)" remains in the same place, namely, the object of
the
> > preposition, the garden. The verb implies plenty of action and
even
> > direction,
>
> I don't agree with "to go about" indicating a direction. While every
> single step has doubtlessly a direction, this does not apply to the
> action as a whole.
It certainly does; one need only visualize what is going on over time
in the garden.
> > but not to a different place from where it started, namely,
> > the garden.
> Not only does the action end where it started out - anything that
> happens inbetween happens in the same place (namely, the garden).
I don't understand your point; that's what I said in my post.
doug (and Luther by proxy ;-) )
Helmut Richter
> "Michael Hemmer" wrote:
>
>> I don't consider biblical language (to be more specific, the
> language of
>> the most commonly used translations) too good an example for the use
> of
>> words.
>
><Luther dreht sich im Grabe um> ;-)
>
> Why not? Without the development the language underwent in biblical
> usage, it wouldn't be what it is today. Moreover countless words
> were, for lack of a better expression, "semantically cast" for the
> first time in any enduring fashion through such biblical translations.
> But even those reasons need not be adduced. And in any event, biblical
> usage ranges from very archaic to very contemporary (see the newer
> translations) and everything in between, so citing "biblical language"
> as a consistently (esp. diachronically) unified entity is a chimera in
> any case. There is nothing any more illegitimae or less useful about
> biblical usage than about that in any other specialized area, and it
> certainly has had an almost inestimable effect on the development of
> the language. That it is not (always) "what one says" in daily
> language (which is I assume what you really mean) is beside the point.
> What if someone picks up a bible and comes to this sentence?
>
><End of rant; Luther beruhigt sich etwas>
This is a very complicated way of saying that the language of any
Bible translation is the language of the translator rather than that
of the Biblical Urtext. And Michael could have said much simpler that
Luther's language (irrespective of whether Luther was translating the
Bible or writing anything else) is not a source of examples for
contemporary German style.
The Bibelwerk's server (http://www.bibelwerk.de/bibel/) is down,
otherwise I'd have looked up that verse in a contemporary translation.
I am pretty sure that it conforms to what Michael regards as today's
normal use of words. I would even venture to say that, for any
language, a contemporary Bible translation is a better source for
examples of language usage than, say, a novel or a newspaper article.
Helmut Richter
Sebastian Koppehel
> I understand that some prepositions MUST ONLY have akk or dat
> following them.
Also a lot of prepositions reign the genitive case.
> I also understand that it is possible to have either following
> [Akk/Dat]. However this is where it gets tricky.
No. Change of place? Yes -> accusative, no -> dative case.
- Sebastian
Rainer Kalus
Steve <steven...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have been having problems for such a long
> time understanding when to use one and not
> the other.
There is another rule of thumb giving a clue whether a verb
governs accusative or dative objects.
A "subject + verb + accusative object" construction often
describes an action focussed on the object. Frequently the
action leaves the object changed in possession, state,
existence, or any other of many possible ways.
A "subject + verb + dative object" construction often refers
to a conduct of the subject towards the object. The verb
sets subject and object in a relation, rather than putting
the prior in charge of the latter. Therefore, the object
usually is not submitted to change. As conduct generally is
a matter of human relations, verbs governing the dative case
often have a person as their object, not a thing.
Unfortunately, the change is sometimes not easy to see.
Examples:
1. "I drink milk." The object is converted to urine and
other stuff.
=> Akkusativ: "Ich trinke Milch."
2. "I write a book." The object comes into being only
through the action.
=> Akkusativ: "I write a book."
3. "I read a book." The object is changed through the
action, inasmuch as it is being acquired. Well, maybe that愀
farfetched. But reading is clearly an action focussed on an
object.
=> Akkusativ: "Ich lese ein Buch."
4. "I help my wife." Your wife doesn愒 change in consequence
(I ignore any vulgar sense of the sentence).
=> Dativ: "Ich helfe meiner Frau."
5. "I follow the rules." The rules stay the same.
=> Dativ: "Ich beachte die Regeln."
6. "I defy the bad weather." Weather is unlikely to change
due to my behaviour.
=> Dativ: "Ich trotze dem Wetter."
Rainer
Rainer Kalus
Rainer Kalus <ka...@box.de> wrote:
> 5. "I follow the rules." The rules stay the same.
> => Dativ: "Ich beachte die Regeln."
Errh, this is not exactly dative case. I wanted to write:
=> Dativ: "Ich folge den Regeln."
But my mistake shows that this rule of thumb is not free
from exceptions.
Rainer
dwstott
> Bible translation is the language of the translator rather than that
> of the Biblical Urtext.
I must confess I don't see that that's what I said or implied at all,
nor did I intend to say that. I'm not even sure what that has to do
with the discussion, but I may be missing something obvious.
>And Michael could have said much simpler that
> Luther's language (irrespective of whether Luther was translating
the
> Bible or writing anything else) is not a source of examples for
> contemporary German style.
<sigh> One more time with feeling: I didn't state or imply it was a
source of examples for contemporary German style, I adduced it as an
example of a grammatical point. No more, no less. And one more time
with feeling again: I added the "(about)" in my own English
translation to draw attention to the irregularity of the German. I
didn't understand the original question as asking specifically about
contemporary German, but about German usage in the larger sense, and
not about the use of a verb with a separable prefix instead of the
same verb without one, but about the thinking governing dative and
accusative prepositions, which latter issue I was addressing.
> The Bibelwerk's server (http://www.bibelwerk.de/bibel/) is down,
> otherwise I'd have looked up that verse in a contemporary
translation.
> I am pretty sure that it conforms to what Michael regards as today's
> normal use of words.
I would expect it to. That's the point of such translations.
>I would even venture to say that, for any
> language, a contemporary Bible translation is a better source for
> examples of language usage than, say, a novel or a newspaper
article.
Wow; I didn't expect anyone to say that. I would agree, not least
because at least native English speakers are generally modestly
familiar with the biblical text and/or stories, so there is an
immediate frame of reference quite apart from the translation's
attempt to render the Greek or Hebrew in more comprehensible
contemporary language.
But anyway, really the original issue, as I understand Michael, was
the use of herumgehen instead of gehen, which is certainly a valid
point, and secondarily the larger question about using the Bible as a
source for examples, which I have always found helpful.
BTW and just for fun: The Ausgabe letzter Hand of Luther's passage
(1545) reads: "Und sie höreten die stimme Gottes des Herrn, der im
Garten gieng."
doug
Wayne Brown
news:jLy2a.33525$r9.2...@fe10.atl2.webusenet.com...
(the best part cut in order to comment on just the following)
> >And Michael could have said much simpler that
> > Luther's language (irrespective of whether Luther was translating
> the
> > Bible or writing anything else) is not a source of examples for
> > contemporary German style.
>
> <sigh> One more time with feeling: I didn't state or imply it was a
> source of examples for contemporary German style, I adduced it as an
> example of a grammatical point. No more, no less. And one more time
> with feeling again: I added the "(about)" in my own English
> translation to draw attention to the irregularity of the German. I
> didn't understand the original question as asking specifically about
> contemporary German, but about German usage in the larger sense, and
> not about the use of a verb with a separable prefix instead of the
> same verb without one, but about the thinking governing dative and
> accusative prepositions, which latter issue I was addressing.
Your point, I believe, is clear. In my opinion, to acquire the thinking the
learner should go step by step through graded material from the first few
words through various levels of German up to the final jump-off into the
language in all its forms. The Bible can be both useless and invaluable,
depending on the learner's level. Generally, it's anathema to the efforts of
a beginner taking early steps in modern German, although some sects
apparently do use it as a kind of German textbook for beginners. Martin
Luther wrote that his goal was not just to translate the Bible; he said he
wanted every German also to be able to feel the poetry of it that he had
discovered by being able to read the originals. The result of the efforts of
Luther the linguist is astounding, and serious students of German will one
day want to know why the translation is still discussed nearly 500 years
later and how Luther set the stage for Modern High German. Learners will
also want to look at various other German translations over the centuries.
All in good time.
Nothing, I believe, is more frustrating and discouraging to learners than
having to read material that is above their level. That comes to light in
this news group from time to time. Also from learners who don't seem to know
how to go about learning the language. Reading poetry with students who are
ready for it can be an exciting undertaking, but it can be pure drudgery for
a teacher and inhuman treatment of a pupil to subject an unprepared beginner
to poetical usage before the time is ripe. Therefore, I would not quote
poetical references to learners.
Das fiel mir alles ein, während ich unter den Kirschbäumen in meines Vaters
Garten ging und vom rhythmischen Plätschern eines kühlen Brunnens berauscht
und von den leisen Tönen einer Äolsharfe betört wurde.
Regards, ----- WB.
tandp
Rainer Kalus schrieb:
"Es hat ihm geschadet" seems to contradict your theory.
Does anyone know of a complete list of verbs (helfen, folgen, glauben
usw) that govern the dative?
Tom
Helmut Richter
In article <3E4D148C...@freenet.de>, tandp wrote:
> "Es hat ihm geschadet" seems to contradict your theory.
>
> Does anyone know of a complete list of verbs (helfen, folgen, glauben
> usw) that govern the dative?
I have none.
"glauben" is a bad example as it has two objects like "geben" and
others: "Ich glaube ihm diese Geschichte."
BTW, most verbs having an accusative object have a dative object as
well: "Ich singe ihm ein Lied."
During this thread I have learnt something new about my language. I'll
call it the "accusative object of comment". Some of these verbs have
can have an accusative object commenting the intensity of the process:
Es hat mir eine Menge geholfen.
Das nützt ihm nichts.
They cannot have "real" accusative objects which could be pronouns,
persons, things or whatever - only objects that act as adverbs. This
observation sheds a new light on the *two* accusative objects in
Das geht mich eine Menge an.
Perhaps, one should not call it an "object" but rather an "adverb
consisting of a noun in accusative case". Does this phenomenon show up
in any grammar book?
Helmut Richter
andy
wrote
>
[
>Does anyone know of a complete list of verbs (helfen, folgen, glauben
>usw) that govern the dative?
>
Hammer 2nd edition section 18.4.1 pages 363-366 is "verbs governing the
dative". The comments make it clear that the list is not exhaustive.
To further confuse you, section 18.4.2 (pp 366-368) is "verbs governing
a dative and an accusative object" (eg Er zeigte ihr seine Kupferstiche
- he showed her his etchings)
And section 18.4.3 (pp 368-369) is "reflexive verbs with a dative" (eg
ich habe mir eine Grippe zugezogen - I contracted flu)
--
Andy Taylor [Editor, Austrian Philatelic Society]
For Austrian philately http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk/austamps
tandp
Helmut Richter schrieb:
>
> [X-posted to de.etc.sprache.deutsch, Followup-To: alt.usage.german]
>
> In article <3E4D148C...@freenet.de>, tandp wrote:
>
> > "Es hat ihm geschadet" seems to contradict your theory.
> >
> > Does anyone know of a complete list of verbs (helfen, folgen, glauben
> > usw) that govern the dative?
>
> I have none.
>
> "glauben" is a bad example as it has two objects like "geben" and
> others: "Ich glaube ihm diese Geschichte."
>
This is clear. In some cases, one can envisage a silent direct object
governed by the accusative,
for example:
Es hat ihm geschadet - Es hat ihm einen Schaden zugefügt.
But in a phrase like "ich bin ihm begegnet"- what could possibly be the
direct object, if not "ihm"?
> BTW, most verbs having an accusative object have a dative object as
> well: "Ich singe ihm ein Lied."
>
This is clear enough, and very common.
> During this thread I have learnt something new about my language. I'll
> call it the "accusative object of comment". Some of these verbs have
> can have an accusative object commenting the intensity of the process:
>
> Es hat mir eine Menge geholfen.
> Das nützt ihm nichts.
>
> They cannot have "real" accusative objects which could be pronouns,
> persons, things or whatever - only objects that act as adverbs. This
> observation sheds a new light on the *two* accusative objects in
>
> Das geht mich eine Menge an.
>
> Perhaps, one should not call it an "object" but rather an "adverb
> consisting of a noun in accusative case". Does this phenomenon show up
> in any grammar book?
>
> Helmut Richter
In his book "historical German syntax" Lockwood called this a double
accusative object
and quoted other historical examples, for example Luther -
"ich habe dich einen Gott gesetzt über Pharao"
Tom
Ralf Heinrich Arning
> [X-posted to de.etc.sprache.deutsch, Followup-To: alt.usage.german]
>
> During this thread I have learnt something new about my language. I'll
> call it the "accusative object of comment". Some of these verbs have
> can have an accusative object commenting the intensity of the process:
>
> Es hat mir eine Menge geholfen.
> Das nützt ihm nichts.
>
> They cannot have "real" accusative objects which could be pronouns,
> persons, things or whatever - only objects that act as adverbs. This
> observation sheds a new light on the *two* accusative objects in
>
> Das geht mich eine Menge an.
>
> Perhaps, one should not call it an "object" but rather an "adverb
> consisting of a noun in accusative case". Does this phenomenon show up
> in any grammar book?
The Duden-Grammatik of 1973 distinguishes between "Akkusativ" and
"adverbialer Akkusativ" (p. 481). The examples for the last one are:
| Er wartet einen Augenblick.
| zwei Stunden.
Ralf
Helge S
"Helmut Richter" <a28...@mail.lrz-muenchen.de> skrev i en meddelelse news:slrnb4q6ag....@lxhri01.lrz.lrz-muenchen.de...
> [X-posted to de.etc.sprache.deutsch, Followup-To: alt.usage.german]
>
> In article <3E4D148C...@freenet.de>, tandp wrote:
>
> > "Es hat ihm geschadet" seems to contradict your theory.
> >
> > Does anyone know of a complete list of verbs (helfen, folgen, glauben
> > usw) that govern the dative?
>
> I have none.
>
http://www.ecoglobe.org.nz/language/dativ.htm
My own list run like this, but it is hardly complete?
(1)
begegnen
danken
dienen
drohen
eingehen
entkommen
entsprechen
folgen
gehorchen
gehören
gelingen
gelten
gleichen & ähneln
gratulieren
helfen
huldigen
imponieren
missfallen
misslingen
misstrauen
nützen
passen
schaden
schmecken
schmeicheln
trauen
trotzen
verhelfen
vertrauen
weichen
(2)
angehören
auffallen
beistehen
beiwohnen
einfallen
entgegen + intransitive verb
nachgeben
nachstehen
vorausgehen
vorbeugen
widersprechen
widerstehen
zuhören
zulächeln
zusagen
zusehen
zustoßen
zuvorkommen
--
H
Helmut Richter
Heinrich Arning wrote:
> Helmut Richter <a28...@mail.lrz-muenchen.de> wrote:
>
>> During this thread I have learnt something new about my language. I'll
>> call it the "accusative object of comment". Some of these verbs have
>> can have an accusative object commenting the intensity of the process:
>>
>> Es hat mir eine Menge geholfen.
>> Das nützt ihm nichts.
> The Duden-Grammatik of 1973 distinguishes between "Akkusativ" and
> "adverbialer Akkusativ" (p. 481). The examples for the last one are:
>
>| Er wartet einen Augenblick.
>| zwei Stunden.
This is similar but not equal. You may ask "Was hilft es mir?" but not
"*Was wartet er?" Of course, you can ask other questions but an accusative
is only an accusative if you ask "wen" or "was".
(Yes, you can ask "Was wartet er?" but then "einen Augenblick" is not the
answer.)
Helmut Richter
dwstott
> > During this thread I have learnt something new about my language.
I'll
> > call it the "accusative object of comment". Some of these verbs
have
> > can have an accusative object commenting the intensity of the
process:
> >
> > Es hat mir eine Menge geholfen.
> > Das nützt ihm nichts.
> >
> > They cannot have "real" accusative objects which could be
pronouns,
> > persons, things or whatever - only objects that act as adverbs.
This
> > observation sheds a new light on the *two* accusative objects in
> >
> > Das geht mich eine Menge an.
> >
> > Perhaps, one should not call it an "object" but rather an "adverb
> > consisting of a noun in accusative case". Does this phenomenon
show up
> > in any grammar book?
At the risk of citing a grammatical description without documentation,
I recall (perhaps from G. Curme, A Grammar of the German Language --
I'll check and see if I can find it) that this usage is a variation of
what at least American students of German often learn as the
"accusative of definite time" (as opposed to the "genitive of
indefinite time") (Wie lange? Eine Stunde. Wann? Eines Tages.)
I think Curme calls it something like "accusative of definite unit
measurement," where the unit of measurement can be temporal, as in the
above examples, or almost anything else --, e.g.,
"Es hat mir [how much, what *definite amount*?] eine Menge geholfen."
On this view, I suppose "nichts" in "Das nützt ihm nichts" would also
be accusative of definite unit measurement, namely, the definite
quanity of "nothing".
I believe accusative expressions such as "einen Kilometer" etc. also
fall under this rubric, though they are also given subclassifications
as well (e.g., acc. of def. time).
I'll try to find some documentation.
doug
Oliver Neukum
> At the risk of citing a grammatical description without documentation,
> I recall (perhaps from G. Curme, A Grammar of the German Language --
> I'll check and see if I can find it) that this usage is a variation of
> what at least American students of German often learn as the
> "accusative of definite time" (as opposed to the "genitive of
> indefinite time") (Wie lange? Eine Stunde. Wann? Eines Tages.)
>
> I think Curme calls it something like "accusative of definite unit
> measurement," where the unit of measurement can be temporal, as in the
> above examples, or almost anything else --, e.g.,
There's little connection with definity.
It's a question of extension vs. point in time.
Einige Zeit warteten wir. - absolutely undefined,
but the question would be: Wie lange? not Wann?
This feature is old, in fact indoeuropean.
The extent need not be temporal. It can also be spatial
or abstract.
Though as a relatively recent development sometimes points
in time are also expressed with an accusative, like:
Er kam letzten Montag. A genitive here would be archaic.
Apart from that there's a moribund genitive of mode, like:
Mit einer Fähre kommen wir trockenen Fußes über einen Fluss.
HTH
Oliver
dwstott
> > I think Curme calls it something like "accusative of definite unit
> > measurement," where the unit of measurement can be temporal, as in
the
> > above examples, or almost anything else --, e.g.,
>
> There's little connection with definity.
I respectfully disagree. See below.
> It's a question of extension vs. point in time.
> Einige Zeit warteten wir. - absolutely undefined,
No, this is a *perfect* example of definite quantity: "some"; it
doesn't have to be 1 day, or 2 hours, or a number. It just has to be
specified as opposed to, e.g., not specified, = indefinite time.
N.B. I am not saying it is "undefined," I'm saying (or Curme is
saying; I'll check) that it is indefinite.
"When will you come?"
"Some day." [indefinite, genitive]
"No, tell me *definitely* when you will come."
"I can't; all I can say is `some day.'" [indefinite, genitive]
"No you must tell me definitely."
"Okay, next Monday." [definite, accusative] (analogous to your example
below)
> but the question would be: Wie lange? not Wann?
Of course; the context is different. In the examples I cited earlier,
the question was indeed "wie lange." My point is that this accusative
can be used with (as you mention below) almost any unit of
measurement, whence also the question (wie lange? wann? etc.) also
changes. That's the point.
> This feature is old, in fact indoeuropean.
I don't doubt it, given its pervasiveness.
> The extent need not be temporal. It can also be spatial
> or abstract.
That was the point I made in my earlier post.
> Though as a relatively recent development sometimes points
> in time are also expressed with an accusative, like:
> Er kam letzten Montag. A genitive here would be archaic.
It would also be wrong, since the speaker is specifying a definite
time rather than an indefinite one.
> Apart from that there's a moribund genitive of mode, like:
> Mit einer Fähre kommen wir trockenen Fußes über einen Fluss.
But that no longer has anything to do with definite unit measurement;
that usage resembles more the genitive absolute in Greek (or at least
part of it), so we have actually left the previous discussion.
I think your dissension regarding "einige Zeit" above is merely that
we are looking a bit differently at the terms "defined" and
"definite/indefinite." "Indefinite" time (eines Tages) is perhaps a
poor example to describe the overriding concept here, since although
there can be definite spatial measurement (zwei Kilometer etc.), I'm
unsure there can be any "indefinite" unit measurement in the same
sense as "indefinite" time.
doug
tandp
Tom
Helge S schrieb:
dwstott
"adverb
> > > consisting of a noun in accusative case". Does this phenomenon
> show up
> > > in any grammar book?
>
> At the risk of citing a grammatical description without
documentation,
> I recall (perhaps from G. Curme, A Grammar of the German Language --
> I'll check and see if I can find it) that this usage is a variation
of
> what at least American students of German often learn as the
> "accusative of definite time" (as opposed to the "genitive of
> indefinite time") (Wie lange? Eine Stunde. Wann? Eines Tages.)
>
> I think Curme calls it something like "accusative of definite unit
> measurement," where the unit of measurement can be temporal, as in
the
> above examples, or almost anything else --
I checked in G.Curme, A Grammar of the German Language, and he is not
the source for the overriding notion of what I called "accusative of
definite unit measurement." At this point I don't remember where I saw
it.
Curme does enumerate dozens of examples of such accusative (and
genitive) use, listing them under such rubrics as definite time,
analogies to the adverb of degree (das Dorf liegt eine Stunde; gehen
wir einen Schritt weiter), as a measure of difference (er ist einen
halben Kopf [or um einen halben Kopf] grösser), duration or measure of
time answering the question "how long, how often, etc." (er liest den
lieben ganzen Tag, ich bin schon drei Tage hier, usw), weights,
amounts, price (es ist einen Zentner schwer, es kostet viel Geld), and
so on. But all the example can indeed be subsumed under the notion of
"definite unit measurement."
Sorry I can't find the source.
Interestingly, Curme also points out that "in answer to the question
how often, or how much within a given time, the gen., or perhaps more
commonly acc., of the noun expressing the given time within may be
used in case of masculines and neuters, with feminines, however, only
the acc., or both consructions may with all genders be replaced by a
prep. phrase."
That is, not "zweimal der Woche", but "jede Woche zweimal", or
"zweimal die Woche" (or with prep.: zweimal in der Woche).
But (masc.) either
Das Schiff fährt zweimal des Tags.
or:
Das Schiff fährt zweimal den Tag.
Can someone tell me which of these is more common?
doug
Helmut Richter
> Das Schiff fährt zweimal des Tags.
> or:
> Das Schiff fährt zweimal den Tag.
>
> Can someone tell me which of these is more common?
"zweimal des Tags" is extremely uncommon - at least archaic or stilted
or even wrong.
"zweimal den Tag" is uncommon enough but not wrong; I would, however,
prefer "zweimal täglich", "zweimal am Tag".
"zweimal die Woche" is common, and the alternatives given for the day
are common as well: "zweimal wöchentlich", "zweimal in der Woche".
If you consider also seconds, minutes, hours, months, and years, it
looks as if the feminine ones do more easily allow the construct with
the accusative. The preposition is always "in" except for "Tag" where
it is "an" (this hold always, e.g. "es geschah an jenem Tag" but
"... in jener Stunde").
Helmut Richter
dwstott
Helmut Richter responded:
> > Das Schiff fährt zweimal des Tags.
> > Das Schiff fährt zweimal den Tag.
> > Can someone tell me which of these is more common?
> "zweimal des Tags" is extremely uncommon - at least archaic or
stilted
> or even wrong.
I do think I have seen it, perhaps in late 18th-century writing, but
I'm not entirely sure. Perhaps one can say it's "so archaic as to be
considered wrong today."
[ snip ]
> If you consider also seconds, minutes, hours, months, and years, it
> looks as if the feminine ones do more easily allow the construct
with
> the accusative.
This may be an impossible question, but do you have *any* sense for
why (or how) the feminines developed this way?
doug
Oliver Neukum
> This may be an impossible question, but do you have *any* sense for
> why (or how) the feminines developed this way?
Probably because you can't tell the genitive from a dative.
Regards
Oliver
Oliver Neukum
> Of course; the context is different. In the examples I cited earlier,
> the question was indeed "wie lange." My point is that this accusative
> can be used with (as you mention below) almost any unit of
> measurement, whence also the question (wie lange? wann? etc.) also
> changes. That's the point.
Well not entirely. The nacked accusative can only express
periods within which something happens. It's not a free indication
of time.
Consider:
Ich putze drei Stunden. (the cleaning will happen during this time)
Ich putze in drei Stunden. (definite point in time given in a relative
way or a time limit)
>> Though as a relatively recent development sometimes points
>> in time are also expressed with an accusative, like:
>> Er kam letzten Montag. A genitive here would be archaic.
>
> It would also be wrong, since the speaker is specifying a definite
> time rather than an indefinite one.
People really spoke this way. It's odd today, but still understood.
>> Apart from that there's a moribund genitive of mode, like:
>> Mit einer Fähre kommen wir trockenen Fußes über einen Fluss.
>
> But that no longer has anything to do with definite unit measurement;
> that usage resembles more the genitive absolute in Greek (or at least
> part of it), so we have actually left the previous discussion.
Not really. The "genetive of time" more often than not expresses
a temporal mode or repeated action.
"Montags" means every Monday. "Montag" means one Monday.
Expressions like "Abends" express mode rather than time.
Regards
Oliver
dwstott
> >> Mit einer Fähre kommen wir trockenen Fußes über einen Fluss.
> > But that no longer has anything to do with definite unit
measurement;
> > that usage resembles more the genitive absolute in Greek (or at
least
> > part of it), so we have actually left the previous discussion.
>
> Not really
Well, I do still think we are leaving the discussion of an accusative
of definite unit measurement as opposed to (specifically) genitive of
indefinite time and are entering upon other uses of the genitive,
albeit still with time. The example of "trockenen Fußes" seem to leave
that discussion quite decidedly.
Incidentally, G.Curme's grammar does indeed enumerate all these uses
of the genitive with regard to time. It's a rather intimidating list.
> The "genetive of time" more often than not expresses
> a temporal mode or repeated action.
I think there are too many uses of genitive with respect to time to
make this generalization, but I may well be wrong. In any event, even
the examples you adduce Curme subsumes under "indefinite time."
> "Montags" means every Monday. "Montag" means one Monday.
> Expressions like "Abends" express mode rather than time.
Curme suggest that it "designates the time of day in which something
happens" and relates it to indefinite time in the sense discussed
above. It's still a subset of indefinite time in Curme's parlance.
But I'm curious: What do you mean by "mode"? "temporal mode"? It
sounds like it could encompass almost anything relating to time in any
case or with any preposition etc. Could you be more specific?
Thanks.
doug