# Can we change the order of "Er ligt hier"?



## cheshire

(1) *Er ligt hier i*ets op de grond. (Something is lying on the ground.)
(2) *Hier ligt iets* op de grond.
(3) *Iets ligt hier *op de grond.

Can we change the word order of (1) and make it (2) or (3)?


----------



## jeroen94704

All three are grammatically correct, if that's what you mean. They all mean essentially the same, although number 3) has a slightly artificial feel to it. You will always loose the "Er" from number 1) though. 

Does that answer your question?

Jeroen


----------



## HKK

You can change the word order, but the first word of the sentence will be emphasized. Except for 1, the normal word order.


----------



## Joannes

Do note that you left out *er* in (2) and (3). Putting it in would make them sound weird. I guess because what is expressed is no longer mere existence.

(2b) *Hier ligt er iets op de grond.*
(3b) *Iets ligt er hier op de grond.*


----------



## cheshire

Thanks!

But "er" is an expletive just like English "it" or German "es".
Joannes, do you mean 2b and 3b are more preferable?


----------



## HKK

2b and 3b are not preferable. As Joannes mentioned, they sound awkward.


----------



## elroy

Cheshire, they sound awkward because the only reason (1) has "er" is that it needs a "place holder" in the first position.  The word doesn't actually serve a semantic purpose.

The German "es" has the same function:

(1') Es liegt hier etwas auf dem Boden. 
(2') Hier liegt etwas auf dem Boden. 
(3') Etwas liegt hier auf dem Boden. 
(2b') Hier liegt es etwas auf dem Boden. 
(3b') Etwas liegt es hier auf dem Boden. 

We can't make a comparison with the English "it" because it isn't used the same way.


----------



## HKK

I think a comparison with English is possible. You should know that "er" is originally a short form of "daar" (there). In Brabants dialect we still say *"Der ligt hier iets op de grond".

There's something on the floor here. Er ligt hier iets op de grond.
Something's on the floor here. Iets ligt hier op de grond.
Something's there on the floor here. Iets ligt er hier op de grond.
Here's there somthing on the floor. Hier ligt er iets op de grond.

ps: The original function of 'er' can still be seen in other contexts: Hij is er geraakt/He got there. Ben je er nog?/Are you still there?/...


----------



## elroy

Sure, a comparison with "there" is possible, but not with "it."

In any case, I think the comparison with German is easier to follow in this case because of the structural similarity between the German sentences and the Dutch ones.


----------



## Joannes

Yes, this kind of existential *er* is structurally similar to existential *es* in German.

In _meaning_ (and sometimes structure as well), it can be similar to English *there*, French *y* _and_ *en*, and German *da* - especially in prepositional constructions.


----------



## ablativ

Joannes said:


> In _meaning,_ it can be similar to French *y* _and_ *en*.


 
_Il *y* *en* a vingt ...= *er* (y) zijn *er *(en) twintig ...= *es*_ _gibt *davon/derer *zwanzig ..._

Which, in my opinion, reflects some kind of a partitve article (_l'article partitif). Davon (dessen/derer_) in the sense of a genitive.

_Ik weet er alles van _(er van = *en *[French]). _Ik weet *van alles *_(ich weiß *alles*). _Il y a *du *vin _(du = de le = van de), _es gibt *Wein*_, _er is *wijn *_(no partive article).

abl.


----------



## HKK

ablativ said:


> _Ik weet *van alles *_(ich weiß *alles*).



Very thought-provoking post, but "Ik weet van alles" doesn't mean "I know everything"/. It means "I know all sorts of things" Is that what you meant?


----------



## ablativ

HKK said:


> Very thought-provoking post, but "Ik weet van alles" doesn't mean "I know everything"/. It means "I know all sorts of things" Is that what you meant?


 
I surely agree, that's what I meant. But I think "ich weiß alles" can (also) be used in the sense of "I know all sorts of things". "Er hat auf alles eine Antwort", you can ask him whatever you like, _all sorts of things_, er weiß _alles_. "Alles Mögliche" doesn't mean exactly the same as "all sorts of things". 

abl.


----------



## cheshire

Thanks everyone! elroy, I like the Dutch (and German) rule of "respecting" word order (that the second position in a sentence takes a verb). That's why the place holder "er" is needed! 

I think HKK is saying that "van alles" is less than all, which is different from German "alles."


----------



## Joannes

ablativ said:


> But I think "ich weiß alles" can (also) be used in the sense of "I know all sorts of things".


Can *alles* in *ich weiß alles* be analysed as a genitive, then?

(I'm sorry, if at all, I speak a kind of German without much cases. )


----------



## cheshire

No, I don't think so. It's in nominative.


----------



## elroy

cheshire said:


> It's in nominative.


 Accusative, actually.  

But this is all well beyond the original topic.


----------

