# mein eigenes Leben



## cameliacornea

Hello,

I am wondering about the word "eigen" in a construction with the possessiv pronomen adjektiv:
"mein eigenes Leben"
Why does the word "eigen" get an "s" for neuter? Is it because the construction "eigenes Leben" is considered as "adjektiv ohne artikel", separated from "mein"?
How is it considered the deklination von der konstruktion"possessiv adjektiv pronomen + adjektiv + noun"?
Do we have this in another thread here? Is there maybe an external source for the explanation of this?

Thank you very much


----------



## Frieder

In this case _eigen _is _attributives Adjektiv. _The way it changes depends on whether it is used with an article ...

Das eigene Leben, des eigenen Lebens, dem eigenen Leben, das eigene Leben

... or without one

Eigenes Leben, eigenen Lebens, eigenem Leben, eigenes Leben.

When preceeded by a possesive noun the declination will be similar to the second example:

Mein eigenes Leben, meines eigenen Lebens, meinem eigenen Leben, mein eigenes Leben.

You would do the same with _mein neues Auto, mein nächster Wunsch, meine große Liebe_.


----------



## Gernot Back

cameliacornea said:


> "mein eigenes Leben"
> Why does the word "eigen" get an "s" for neuter? Is it because the construction "eigenes Leben" is considered as "adjektiv ohne artikel", separated from "mein"?


There is no pronoun whatsoever in this phrase!

This phrase consists of 

a possessive article (possessive determiner): _mein_
(the possessive pronoun would be _mein*s* _[Engl: _mine_] and not _mein_ [Engl: _my_])

an attributive adjective with an attributive-adjective inflectional suffix: _eigenes_
a noun: _Leben_
That's all there is!


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> There is no pronoun whatsoever in this phrase!
> 
> This phrase consists of
> 
> a possessive article (possessive determiner): _mein_
> (the possessive pronoun would be _mein*s* _[Engl: _mine_] and not _mein_ [Engl: _my_])


I am not quite happy with you ignoring German grammatical terminology when discussing German grammar. That causes confusion. _Mein _might not be called a _possessive pronoun_ in English but it sure is a _Possessivpronomen _in German. The OP might not be fully fluent yet in German grammar terms but she obviously tries and I don't think we should make her unlearn German terminology and teach her English one instead.


----------



## Gernot Back

berndf said:


> I am not quite happy with you ignoring German grammatical terminology when discussing German grammar. That causes confusion.


Quite the opposite: It is traditional Latin grammar, which is inappropriate to describe modern German grammar. It is traditional Latin grammar that causes the confusion!

I don't know of any textbook for *G*erman as a *f*oreign *l*anguage that would not make a clear distiction between _possessive articles_ and _possessive pronouns_.

This distinction is quite essential. As a teacher, I've come across quite a few GFL-learners who were confused by colleagues or grammars not making this distinction and ended up mixing up _meins _and _mein, deiner _and _dein_, etc. saying things like _*meins Auto_ or *_deiner Vater_.

Mistakes of that kind are absolutely needless since they could be completely avoided by using the right terminology in the first place!


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> I don't know of any textbook for *G*erman as a *f*oreign *l*anguage


I am afraid we won't come together. Like most people who study grammar and who aren't teachers, I find GFL terminology absolutely terrible and I will never succumb this. It causes me physical pain, if now also school teachers for native speakers say_ Nomen_ when then mean _Substantiv_.


Gernot Back said:


> This distinction is quite essential. As a teacher, I've come across quite a few GFL-learners who were confused by colleagues or grammars not making this distinction and ended up mixing up _meins _and _mein, deiner _and _dein_, etc. saying things like _*meins Auto_ or *_deiner Vater_.


I agree that traditional terminology lacks an easy and elegant way to distinguish the two types of pronouns. I usually speak of _attributiv_ vs. _frei stehend_. But that is only a stopgap and I am not quite happy with that.


----------



## Gernot Back

berndf said:


> I agree that traditional terminology lacks an easy and elegant way to distinguish the two types of pronouns.


I haven't really heard/read a reason why you are opposed to distinguishing pronouns from articles.

It's as easy as that: _mein _is an *article *like _ein, kein _(accompanying a noun), while _meins, eins, keins; meiner, einer, keiner_ are *not *(they are replacing nouns on the other hand) and that's exactly the reason why they are called *pro*-nouns; standing *for *or *instead of *a noun!


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> *pro*-nouns; standing *for *or *instead of *a noun!


Exactly. As I said, it causes me physical pain if I hear someone call a _Substantiv _a _Nomen_. A _Nomen _is a _declinable word_. _Substantiv_ is only a sub class of _Nomen, Adjektiv _is another and articles (by your definition) are a sub class of_ Pronomen_.

Anyway, it is just terminology and terminology is not per se right or wrong, it is only more or less useful. Calling _mein, alle, keine, viele_ etc, as in _mein Hause, alle Menschen, keine Probleme, viele Lösungen_, _Pronomen _is still wide spread use and totally normal.


----------



## Gernot Back

berndf said:


> _Substantiv_ is only a sub class of _Nomen, Adjektiv _is another and articles (by your definition) are a sub class of_ Pronomen_.


No, I subscribe to the definition of modern linguistics. _Articles _are neither _pronouns _nor _adjectives_, they are _determiners_:



			
				en.wikipedia.org said:
			
		

> (...) some modern theorists of grammar prefer to distinguish determiners as a separate word class from adjectives, (...)


 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determiner#Description

_Pronouns _always stand alone, not with, but instead of a _noun_. In that respect, they could indeed be classified as a sub class of nouns.


			
				de.wikipedia.org said:
			
		

> In der traditionellen Sprachwissenschaft stehen Pronomen alleine ohne ein Nomen (...) oder vor einem Nomen (...). In der modernen Linguistik dagegen stehen Pronomen stets alleine ohne ein Nomen.


 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronomen

By the way, Glottopedia describes quite well where the confusion concerning the terms _noun _and _substantive _results from:


			
				glottopedia.org said:
			
		

> The term *noun* is used in English (and in French _nom_) to denote a member of the word class whose members are most typical expressions for things.
> (...)
> This meaning results form ellipsis of the fuller form _substantive noun_ (= Latin _nomen substantivum_). In other European Languages, the ellipted part was _nomen_, so English _noun_ corresponds to German _Substantiv_, Russian _suščestvitel'noe_, etc.


 http://www.glottopedia.org/index.php/Noun


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> By the way, Glottopedia describes quite well where the confusion concerning the terms _noun _and _substantive _results from


Yes, the confusion in English. Reducing _nomen substantivum_ to _noun_ is like in French where _duty free shop_ is reduced to _free shop_ with the most important part being left out. That's what bothers me.


----------



## Gernot Back

berndf said:


> Yes, the confusion in English. Reducing _nomen substantivum_ to _noun_ is like in French where _duty free shop_ is reduced to _free shop_ with the most important part being left out.


Yes, but actually in a synchronic approach (forgetting about the Latin etymology of _nomen _= _name_), the term _noun _is the more appropriate one in relation to the term _pronoun_.
_Pronouns _can only stand for _substantive nouns_, not for _adjective nouns_. So in German, the dichotomy should either be

_Nomen _vs. _Pronomen _
or
_Substantiv _vs. _Pro-Substantiv_|_Prosubstantiv_.
With regard to _personal pronouns_/_Personalpronomen_, I would prefer the term _noun_/_Nomen _anyway: At least in the first and second person singular and plural, they stand for nothing else but individuals, which you could otherwise only be addressed with their proper *names* (_nomen proprium)_. 

Maybe that is the reason, why so many people cling to the term _possessive *pronoun*_, even if from a distributional analysis they are nothing but _determiners _(_articles_). In the case of _possessive determiners_ too, the only alternative of addressing the first and second person, would be to use of proper names.

This would sound somewhat like how Karl May figured native Americans talking about themselves and other persons, sth. like chief _Black Bear_ saying about himself:

_"Häuptling Schwarzer Bärs Tage sind gekommen."_​


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> So in German, the dichotomy should either be
> 
> _Nomen _vs. _Pronomen _
> or
> _Substantiv _vs. _Pro-Substantiv_|_Prosubstantiv_.


Precisely not! Because a _Pronomen _is a _particle that takes the place of a declinable word_. It is not a _particle that takes the place of a Substantiv_. That precisely is the confusion.

The etymologies of _Pronomen _and _pronoun _are the same, their synchronic meanings (talking about traditional terminology which I defend here and which renowned dictionaries like Duden uphold) are not.



Gernot Back said:


> In the case of _possessive determiners_ too


_Determiner_ is a term I like. I am not quite sure how to render it in German. I sometimes write _Bestimmer _but that is obviously an ad-hoc translation. In traditional terminology, determiners are obviously be a sub-class of _Pronomen_.


----------



## Gernot Back

berndf said:


> Precisely not! Because a _Pronomen _is a _particle that takes the place of a declinable word_.


So, could you state an example, where a pronoun stands for an attributive adjective? I cant think of any!

Maybe we should always write the term _pro-noun_ with a hyphen in order to label it as the _pro-form_, which it is!


			
				en.wikipedia.org said:
			
		

> A pronoun substitutes a noun or a noun phrase, with or without a determiner: _it_, _this_.


 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-form


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> So, could you state an example, where a pronoun stands for an attributive adjective? I cant think of any!


_Dieses Buch ist schön_. -- The Demonstrativpronomen _dies-_ takes the place of an attribute, a place that is normally reserved form declinable word classes.

In the sentence
_Mein Buch ist dies._
dies behaves like a predicative adjective and therefore takes the null-declension.

In the sentence
_Mein Buch ist dieses._
dies behaves like a predicative noun and is therefore inflected like a noun following the adjective inflection rules.

By the way: In the Duden article quoted above, you find the distinction between _attributiv_  and _selbständig_ which is almost identical to my distinction


berndf said:


> I usually speak of _attributiv_ vs. _frei stehend_.


So, it is not my personal idiosyncrasy but established terminology.


----------



## Gernot Back

I guess, our grammar models are incompatible.



berndf said:


> _Dieses Buch ist schön_. -- The Demonstrativpronomen _dies_ takes the place of an attribute, a place that is normally reserved form declinable word classes.


_Dieses _preceding the noun _Buch _in your example takes the place of a definite or indefinite article, so here _dieses _itself *is *an article (determiner), a _demonstrative article_ (_demonstrative determiner_), not a pronoun.



berndf said:


> In the sentence
> _Mein Buch ist dies._
> dies behaves like a predicative adjective and therefore takes the null-declension.


You were saying, pronouns take the place of declinable words. In German, however, it is a feature of predicative adjectives that they are *not *inflected. Unlike in the case of zero-articles in the indefinite plural or singular (with uncountable nouns), I don't see any reason to assume a zero inflectional-morpheme here either.



berndf said:


> In the sentence
> _Mein Buch ist dieses._
> dies behaves like a predicative noun and is therefore inflected like a noun following the adjective inflection rule.


Here _dieses _is a pronoun indeed, since it does not accompany a noun, but stands for one (i.e. the NP _dieses Buch_, consisting of the demonstrative article [determiner] and a noun).

I think, modern grammar models are superior, less contradictory and thus more appropriate compared to traditional approaches, especially when it comes to teaching German as a foreign language.


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> especially when it comes to teaching German as a foreign language.


That I can't judge. While I recognize and respect to prominence this topic has for you, I am not prepared to let GFL teaching needs preempt the way I describe my mother-tongue.

In German, I find it still appropriate to construct the the word class system morphology and not semantics base as it may be the case for English which the declension system is all but gone.


Gernot Back said:


> You were saying, pronouns take the place of declinable words. In German, however, it is a feature of predicative adjectives that they are *not *inflected. Unlike in the case of zero-articles in the indefinite plural or singular (with uncountable nouns), I don't see any reason to assume a zero inflectional-morpheme here either.


For a description system that serves sychronic and diacronic analysis alike, I still prefer to speak of _omitted inflection/not inflected_ (inflection rule are logically applicable but omitted) and not of _uninfected_ (inflections rules don't apply; in the case of adverbs, case, gender and number inflections aren't simply omitted, the notions of case, gender and number logically don't apply). The modern rules

Attributive in front of the head noun -> inflected, example: _feine Erbsen_.
Attributive following the head noun -> not inflected, example: _Erbsen, fein_.

Predicative -> not inflected, example: _Die Erbsen sind fein_.
wasn't always like that and we still have quite a few frozen expressions where these rules don't hold (_Gut Ding will Weile haben_).



Gernot Back said:


> I think, modern grammar models are superior


I find grammar models *in*ferior that centre around specialized needs and ignore others, in this GFL teaching.



Gernot Back said:


> I guess, our grammar models are incompatible.


Probably. But I am confident we can both live with that comfortably and still have fruitful discussions here knowing how our models differ.


----------



## Gernot Back

berndf said:


> I find grammar models *in*ferior that centre around specialized needs and ignore others, in this GFL teaching.


So, what are those "needs" that are "ignored" by clearly distinguishing _determiners_ and _pro-nouns? 
_
Isn't it rather some conservative unwillingness to develop better explanations, because all of these traditional explanations were so hard and took so long to learn when we were in school?


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> Isn't it rather some conservative unwillingness to develop better explanations


I don't see anything "better" in obscuring the fact that adjectives are just another class of _Nomen_. I find _Substantive _and _Adjektive _have more in common than separates them and using a terminology that describes them as sub classes of another, more fundamental class of words quite good and deleting this from terminology doesn't make anything "better".


----------



## Gernot Back

berndf said:


> I find _Substantive _and _Adjektive _have more in common than separates them


That may be true, but that one thing they definitely don't have in common is their pro-forms. _Pronouns _(_Pronomen_) mostly work as pro-forms for a _noun _(_Substantiv_) or a _noun phrase _(_Nominalphrase, Nomengruppe_), while pro-forms for German adjectives are mostly adjectives themselves (_so_ ein, _ein solch~_,_ derartig~_ + noun).


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> are mostly adjectives themselves (_so_ ein, _ein solch~_,_ derartig~_ + noun).


With the exception of _derartig _(which is an adjective because of the derivational ending _-ig_) those are_ Pronomen _and not adjectives under the traditional terminology. See the Duden link for _dies-_ above (or _solch-_). They have to be labeled _adjectives_ under the "new" terminology because it is lacking the concept of an _attributives Pronomen_. This makes your argument circular as





Gernot Back said:


> pro-forms for German adjectives are mostly adjectives themselves


is an artifact only created by the terminological change you are advocating.


----------



## Gernot Back

berndf said:


> See the Duden link for _dies-_ above (or _solch-_).


Take a look at canoo.net's _solch_!
_So _is considered as an adverb, even by Duden. The ein, which it is combined with in _so ein_ is an indefinite article, while the _eins/einer _in _so eins/einer_ is an indefinite pronoun.


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> Take a look at canoo.net's _solch_!


Yes, that is what I mean.


berndf said:


> They have to be labeled _adjectives_ under the "new" terminology because it is lacking the concept of an _attributives Pronomen_.


Canoo follows that terminology and therefore was to label it an adjective. Duden uses the traditional one and doesn't.


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> The ein, which it is combined with in _so ein_ is an indefinite article, while the _eins/einer _in _so eins/einer_ is an indefinite pronoun.


Most traditional grammarians separate articles into a category of its own. Whether you understand articles as totally separate category or as a sub-category of attributive pronouns is a relatively minor detail. I personally would tend to single out the definite article (because it triggers the weak declension) but not the indefinite ones (because thy trigger the mixed declension, like Indefinitpronomen or Possessivpronomen) but I have no firm opinion on that.


----------



## Gernot Back

If _solch _were a pronoun, it would be inflected as a pronoun and not as an adjective.

We would have to be able to see that in the genitive masculine and neuter singular forms.
But unlike in the case of the demonstrative article (or "pronoun" if you wish) _dies~ _(_Anfang dieses Jahres/Monats _vs._ Anfang diesen Jahres/Monats_), there are not even co-ocurring adjectival and "pronominal" inflections with _solch~_.


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> If solch were a pronoun, it would be inflected as a pronoun and not as an adjective.


They are. That is why in standard language you say _Ende diese*s* Jahres_ (genitive pronomial inflection) but _Ende nächste*n* Jahres_ (genitive adjective inflection).



Gernot Back said:


> are not even co-ocurring adjectival and "pronominal" inflections with _solch~_.


_Eines solches Systems_ vs. _eines solchen Systems_. Both occur.

Anyway, there is nothing inconsistent or complicated with distinguishing _attributive _and _selbständige _declension. Even systems what analyse e.g. possessive pronouns as adjectives need to distinguish between attributive and predicative forms (_this is my book _vs. _this book is mine_). There is nothing horrible about introducing that distinction. Any system that wants to explain _Ende diese*s* Jahres_ vs. _Ende nächste*n* Jahres_ needs to introduce some distinction of similar complexity.


----------



## berndf

I think this discussion is getting to detailed for the current context. I might have resorted to some rhetorical overstatements in the early parts of this discussion ("physical pain", etc). I guess, the message I wanted to get across is is this:
There are at least two different systems of grammatical analysis for German in use and both are internally consistent (in as much as any grammar of a natural language can ever be consistent) and have quite respectable proponent. I understand where you are coming from and I can adjust to it in discussions with you and I would never say_ you are wrong _as a reaction to statements that don't make sense in the system I prefer but which are perfectly valid in the system you prefer. I might argue mine is better but I wouldn't say you are "wrong".

Here


Gernot Back said:


> There is no pronoun whatsoever in this phrase!


you seem to have lacked awareness of this existence of two rivaling systems that are both respectable. That is _der langen Rede kurzer Sinn_.


----------



## bearded

As a foreigner, I will not enter the discussion concerning German grammar terminology.  Nevertheless, I would like to ask berndf a question:
Don't you think that the definition _attributives Pronomen _(your #20) carries a contradiction in itself?  If a word is _attributiv,_ then it accompanies a noun/substantive.  But if the noun (nomen) is there, how can the word at the same time be a pro-noun / Pro-nomen?
Based on Italian terminology (which is absolutely not the object of this thread) I must say that Gernot's and canoo's ''new'' terminology looks more logical and understandable.


----------



## berndf

bearded man said:


> But if the noun (nomen) is there, how can the word at the same time be a pro-noun / Pro-nomen?


Traditional German grammar follows Latin and not Italian systematics. An attributive _pronomen_ takes the place of an attributive _nomen_:
1. _*Blaues *Haus._
2. _*Peters *Haus._
3. _*Dieses *Haus._
In 1. the attribute is an _nomen adjektivum _(_blaues_), in 2. _a nomen substantivum _(_Peters_), i.e. in both cases _nomina _and in 3. it is called a _pronomen _(_dieses_) because it appears is the syntactic position where normally a _nomen_ is expected (_blaues_ or _Peters_ or whatever).


----------



## Dan2

I listen to both sides of the argument and try to decide on the basis of what is best from the point of view of logic, clarity, and lack of ambiguity, rather than what may follow some traditional analysis of an ancient language.  Based on that I'd like to add some words of support to Gernot's position.  Last year in this thread I wrote:

QUOTE
I think we've argued about this before , but it seems to me that calling the "mein" of "mein neues Auto" a possessive _pronoun_ (even if, as Bernd has argued, there's a long tradition of this) is confusing to students and confusing in general since it uses a single term (pronoun) for
a) words (like "I", "me", "er", "ihn", etc) that _take the place of _a noun phrase and _function syntactically_ like a noun or noun phrase ("_der alte Mann_ ist hier" ... "_er_ ist hier")
and
b) words (like "my", "sein", etc) that serve only as _part_ of a noun phrase, with another word serving as noun ("sein Buch ist rot"), and can be syntactically replaced, not by a noun but by an _article_ ("_sein_ Buch ist rot"/"_das_ Buch ist rot").

The words of (b) are sometimes called "possessive adjectives" because, like ordinary adjectives, they modify a noun ("sein Buch" ... "rotes Buch"), but a better term is needed, since the case markings are different, and because these words (in both English and German) don't take an article, as adjectives can ("das rote Buch" / "das sein Buch"). The term I've seen used on the part of those who are careful with terminology is possessive _determiner_.

And it doesn't really help to say, "I didn't call "mein" simply a pronoun, I called it a _possessive pronoun_. We've often seen questions from students who are confused about the "mein(e)s" of "Das Auto ist mein(e)s". The above approach makes a description very straightforward: in
"Sein Auto ist weiß, meins ist rot"
"sein" is a possessive determiner and "meins" is a possessive pronoun (a pronoun because it replaces a noun phrase and fills the same slot syntactically as a noun phrase: "_meins_ ist rot"/"_mein Auto_ ist rot").

I write all this because this topic is sure to come up again and again and I want to cast my vote for the terminology I suggest above.
END-QUOTE

Back to 2015... This controversy has indeed repeatedly come up.  I post now to help avoid people coming away with the view that Gernot's framework is some perversion of rational syntactic analysis based on the needs of teaching German as a foreign language.  Rather it seems to make the most sense, in general, for the analysis of English, German and (at least) some other European languages.


----------



## berndf

Dan2 said:


> The above approach makes a description very straightforward


Yes, straitforward it is.
Mein Buch - attributive pronoun
Das Buch ist meins - predicative pronoun

In the end, what is straightforward is a matter of what you are used to.


----------



## Gernot Back

berndf said:


> Das Buch ist meins - predicative pronoun


But possessive pronouns like _meins, deins, seins, unseres_ etc. do not only appear in a predicative function, e.g.:

_Wir sind beide Schriftsteller, aber wir kennen uns noch nicht.
Also gibst du mir dein_1_ Buch zum Lesen und ich gebe dir meins_2_._​
1 possessive article/determiner
2 possessive pronoun

I don't see how you could describe case #2 as a _*predicative *possessive pronoun_ here, since there is no copula verb in the sentence.


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> But possessive pronouns like _meins, deins, seins, unseres_ etc. do not only appear in a predicative function


No, of course not. I completely agree. _Prädikativ _is only one possibility where a pronoun can appear _selbständig_. _Substantivisch_ is another.

Another reason why I prefer to describe the difference between _mein _and _meins _as a usage rather than as a word class difference is because the separation between the forms depends on dialect and if you analyse _mein _and _meins _as different word classes than you need to invent a completely different description for dialects where the usage separation line runs differently. E.g. in Swiss German both _mi _and _mis _can occur attributively and the difference is one of stress: _mi Hus = mein Haus_; _mis Hus =* mein* Haus_ (like stressed _min hous _and unstressed _mi hous _in Middle English).


----------



## Gernot Back

berndf said:


> No, of course not. I completely agree. _Prädikativ _is only one possibility where a pronoun can appear _selbständig_. _Substantivisch_ is another.


But that is like comparing apples and oranges: _Prädikativ _is a functional category, while _substantivisch_ is a formal one!


berndf said:


> in Swiss German both _mi _and _mis _can occur attributively and the difference is one of stress: _mi Hus = mein Haus_; _mis Hus =* mein* Haus_ (like stressed _min hous _and unstressed _mi hous _in Middle English).


As you say, in Swiss German, the difference between _mi _and _mis _*is *and in Middle English the difference between _mi _and _min _*was *a different one. Anyway, in *standard *German (_mein _vs. _meins_) and in *present-day* English (_my _vs. _mine_), the difference is the one between determiner/article vs. pro-noun!


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> But that is like comparing apples and oranges: _Prädikativ _is a functional category, while _substantivisch_ is a formal one!


I don't see any problem with that. The separation line is between _attributive _and _selbständig_. A _Pronomen _can appear _selbständig _for apple-reasons and for orange-reasons.


Gernot Back said:


> As you say, in Swiss German, the difference between _mi _and _mis _*is *and in Middle English the difference between _mi _and _min _*was *a different one. Anyway, in *standard *German (_mein _vs. _meins_) and in *present-day* English (_my _vs. _mine_), the difference is the one between determiner/article vs. pronoun!


As I said, both description systems are internally consistent (in as far as any natural language can be described by a consistent rule system). The selection cannot be done on the basis of _right_ or_ wrong_ but only on the basis of _more _or _less useful_. I recognize that for your professional needs, it is completely sufficient to have a system that explains standard German and only standard German and in categories that foreign students recognize from home. For my interest in language these considerations don't matter but a system that is able to describe closely related dialects and languages or development stages of a language in compatible terms is preferable. It seems this fully explains our different preferences.


----------



## Gernot Back

berndf said:


> I don't see any problem with that. The separation line is between _attributive _and _selbständig_. A _Pronomen _can appear _selbständig _for apple-reasons and for orange-reasons.


But your apple-reason (prädikatives Pronomen) is in no way different from your orange-reason (substantivisches Pronomen):

Das ist dein (attributives Pronomen) Buch und das ist meins (prädikatives Pronomen).
Du gibst mir dein (attributives Pronomen) Buch und ich dir meins (substantivisches Pronomen).

In both cases _prädikativisches Pronomen _or _substantivisches Pronomen _stand for a (_substantive_) noun, so why not call them a _pro-*noun*_ or a _pro-*substantive*_ in both cases?


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> In both cases _prädikativisches Pronomen _or _substantivisches Pronomen _stand for a (_substantive_) noun


I don't know. I see no reason to decide if a predicative pronoun is more _Substantiv_-like or more _Adjektiv_-like. There are arguments for both. Describing it as a _predicative pronoun_ (e.g. describing it as _Nomen_-like without distinguishing between_ nomen substantivum_ and _nomen adjectivum_) is sufficient and appropriate.


----------

