# Nur elf Prozent der deutschen Männer ist eine eigene Familie wichtiger als berufliches Vorankommen



## twinklestar

> Nur elf Prozent der deutschen Männer *ist *eine eigene Familie wichtiger als berufliches Vorankommen, zeigt eine Studie.



Hello,

The above sentence is cited from a German-Chinese article on a German-teaching website. In the Chinese translation, it was basically translated as " only 11% German men *think*..."

Would you please explain the usage of  *"ist"* in such a case?

Is it wrong if I say "Nur elf Prozent der deutschen Männer *denken / glauben, dass* eine eigene Familie *ist *wichtiger als..."?

Thank you!


----------



## Kajjo

Nein, der deutsche Satz ist schon in Ordnung. Die grundlegende Redewendung lautet:

_mir ist etwas wichtig
mir ist wichtig, dass...
nur einem kleinen Anteil ist es wichtig, dass...._

und entsprechend mit dem Komparativ gebildet

_mir ist eine Familie wichtiger als... = eine Familie ist mir wichtiger...

nur 11% der Männer ist eine Familie wichtiger als...
allen Beteiligten ist es wichtiger, dass..._

Dein Vorschlag funktioniert aber auch, also mit _Männer_ als Subjekt statt _Familie_:

_Nur elf Prozent der deutschen Männer finden/denken/meinen/glauben, dass eine eigene Familie wichtiger ist als...
_
Beachte die Wortstellung bei "wichtiger ist als"!


----------



## berndf

twinklestar said:


> Would you please explain the usage of  *"ist"* in such a case?


_Ist _means what is normally means. There is nothing special about it. The important thing is the fact that _elf Prozent der deutschen Männer_ is in dative case (you can't see thing from an ending but the dative case is still obvious to any native speaker). It is a free dative that means "with respect to..." or "as far as ... is concerned". It is this meaning of the dative case that they translated as "think".


----------



## Demiurg

berndf said:


> The important thing is the fact that _elf Prozent der deutschen Männer_ is in dative case ...



And even more important: "eine eigene Familie" (singular) is the subject of the sentence:

Eine eigene Familie ist nur wenigen Männern wichtig.
Schnelle Autos sind vielen Männern wichtig.


----------



## berndf

Demiurg said:


> And even more important: "eine eigene Familie" (singular) is the subject of the sentence:


For the OP's question, this is only important in the sense that it implicitly marks _elf Prozent der deutschen _Männer as dative which can't be deduced from endings.


----------



## twinklestar

Thank you very much for your help, everyone.

I've understood all your explanations.

I was /am still not familar with the flexible positions of the verb in German which can be any places -ahead of the subject, behind the subject, and at the end of the sentence. And there's no a prep for the phrase- _elf Prozent der deutschen _Männer, so I was confused. I didn't realise that phrase is dative.

Is it correct if I put "laut" before " _elf Prozent der deutschen _Männer" ?

Laut _elf Prozent der deutschen _Männer (I mean according to 11 percent German men...)


----------



## berndf

twinklestar said:


> I am still not familar with the *flexible positions of the verb* in German which can be any places -head of the subject, behind the subject, and at the end of the sentence. And there's no a prep for the phrase- _elf Prozent der deutschen _Männer, so I was confused.


No, no, no, the verb is the only part that is *not *flexible (in declarative main clauses)! If has to be in second position. All the others can be moved around (within limits).

In this case it is very simple: the verb form _*ist *_requires a singular subject. If _elf Prozent der deutschen Männer_ were the subject it had to be _elf Prozent der deutschen Männer *sind*... _Hence, only _eine eigene Familie _is a possible candidate for the subject.


----------



## twinklestar

berndf said:


> No, no, no, the verb is the only part that is *not *flexible (in declarative main clauses)! If has to be in second position. All the others can be moved around (within limits).
> 
> In this case it is very simple: the verb form _*ist *_requires a singular subject. If _elf Prozent der deutschen Männer_ were the subject it had to be _elf Prozent der deutschen Männer *sind*... _Hence, only _eine eigene Familie _is a possible candidate for the subject.



I think you just want me to know if the collocation between plural subject and sind, right in this illustration of yours, correct?

"Sind" doesn't make sense for this context if the subject is _elf Prozent der deutschen Männer, does it?  _I should use "denken", etc.


----------



## berndf

twinklestar said:


> "Sind" doesn't make sense for this context if the subject is _elf Prozent der deutschen Männer, does it? _I should use "denken", etc.


It is as I explained. If you try to turn my explanation around, you'll only get it it wrong. You'd better not do that. Therefore again all the steps of Demiurg's and my explanations in processing order:

The verb form _ist _requires a singular subject.
Hence, _eine eigene Familie_ must be the subject.
Hence, the only possible interpretation of _elf Prozent der deutschen Männer_ is as a "free dative".
The _free dative_ means "with respect to..." or "as far as ... is concerned".
_Think _translates this meaning of the dative case.


----------



## twinklestar

I got it. Many thanks for your help again.


----------



## Kajjo

_freier Dativ (Dativ-Objekt) -- Prädikat (Verb) -- Subjekt - _Prädikativ.
_
Nur elf Prozent der deutschen Männer ist eine eigene Familie wichtiger._
_Eine eigene Familie  ist  nur elf Prozent der deutschen Männer wichtiger._
Wichtiger _ist eine eigene Familie nur elf Prozent der deutschen Männer._

Please note that in main clauses the verb is always in the second position (called "V2" / verb second). All other members may be shifted (in certain limits). You should get this fact absolutely established in your "German language brain". 

Please note that the phrase "wichtiger sein" requires a free dative as object and that the subject is that item "das wichtiger ist". This might feel peculiar for you, but that's how it is with "wichtiger sein".

Please note that your suggestion from #1 works, too, but indeed requires a full verb like _finden/denken _and a subclause with _dass_. Then "Elf Prozent" would be subject.


----------



## twinklestar

Thank you very much for the illustrations in details, Kajjo. I think I am clear about them now.


----------



## Dan2

No disagreement with anything Bernd, Demi, and Kajjo have said.  I just wanted to add...


> Nur elf Prozent der deutschen Männer *ist *eine eigene Familie wichtiger als berufliches Vorankommen, zeigt eine Studie.





twinklestar said:


> I was /am still not familar with the flexible positions of the verb in German which can be any places -ahead of the subject, behind the subject,


This word order is commonly used in English too.  Add "to" to capture the German dative and an almost word-for-word translation is possible:
_To only 11% of German men *is *a family more important than ..._
In this case (but not in general) English even requires V2!


Kajjo said:


> Please note that the phrase "wichtiger sein" *requires *a free dative as object


Am I correct that you mean that *if *"wichtiger sein" has an object, then that object has to be a free dative, but that an "object" is not absolutely required?  For ex., if I say that something is important, could you not reply, "Ja, aber berufliches Vorankommen ist schon wichtiger."?  (Of course some dative object might be implied - _mir, uns, den meisten Menschen_, etc.)

Oh, and yet another question: How about replacing the dative with a für-phrase:
_Für die meisten Männer ist berufliches Vorankommen wichtiger als..._


----------



## Kajjo

Dan2 said:


> Am I correct that you mean that *if *"wichtiger sein" has an object, then that object has to be a free dative, but that an "object" is not absolutely required? For ex., if I say that something is important, could you not reply, "Ja, aber berufliches Vorankommen ist schon wichtiger."? (Of course some dative object might be implied - _mir, uns, den meisten Menschen_, etc.)


Yes, you are right. It is possible to use "wichtiger sein" without free dative. 



Dan2 said:


> Oh, and yet another question: How about replacing the dative with a für-phrase: _Für die meisten Männer ist berufliches Vorankommen wichtiger als.._


Yes, and this construction is even very idiomatic and common.


----------



## Gernot Back

Kajjo said:


> _freier Dativ (Dativ-Objekt) -- Prädikat (Verb) -- Subjekt - _Prädikativ.
> _
> Nur elf Prozent der deutschen Männer ist eine eigene Familie wichtiger.
> Eine eigene Familie  ist  nur elf Prozent der deutschen Männer wichtiger._
> Wichtiger _ist eine eigene Familie nur elf Prozent der deutschen Männer._



I wouldn't call this a "freier Dativ" here. _Nur elf Prozent der deutschen Männer_ is an optional dative *complement *of the adjective _wichtig_ here.
Liste: Adjektive mit Dativ


----------



## bearded

Kajjo said:


> Yes, and this construction is even very idiomatic and common


What difference do you perceive between _Mir ist es wichtig _and _Für mich ist es wichtig?  _Is the formulation with _mir _'gehobener'? Thank you.


----------



## Gernot Back

_Wichtig _can have both, a dative or a prepositional complement (object). While _a _complement with _für_ can be used to denote both persons and things, the dative complement is only applicable to humans or at least animate beings with an ego consciousness.

E.g.: As a teacher in preparation of an exam, I could tell my students sth. like:

_Das ist mir für die kommende Prüfung wichtig.
*Das ist der kommenden Prüfung _(für mich)_ wichtig._​


----------



## Perseas

bearded man said:


> What difference do you perceive between _Mir ist es wichtig _and _Für mich ist es wichtig?  _Is the formulation with _mir _'gehobener'?



Maybe I 'm wrong but I understood bearded man's question in #16 referring to persons:
_Mir ist es ..._ vs _Für mich ist es ..._. in the meaning of _Ich halte es für ..._
Being a non-native speaker that was also a question of mine.
I see similarities in English language in "For me.... vs To me ...".


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> I wouldn't call this a "freier Dativ" here. _Nur elf Prozent der deutschen Männer_ is an optional dative *complement *of the adjective _wichtig_ here.
> Liste: Adjektive mit Dativ


What would be the difference except the word you use for it?


----------



## bearded

Perseas said:


> Maybe I 'm wrong but I understood bearded man's question in #16 referring to persons



I'm sure that our German friends will reply to this. When it concerns humans, there is probably no difference in meaning, but it's just a question of style (my surmise): I hope this will be confirmed.


----------



## Kajjo

bearded man said:


> _Mir ist es wichtig _and _Für mich ist es wichtig? _Is the formulation with _mir _'gehobener'?


In der Alltagssprache sind beide Fassungen üblich und gut. Du hast aber richtig geahnt, die Variante mit "mir" ist etwas gehobener und stilistisch oftmals besser. Wie Gernot richtig erklärte, kann "wichtig sein" beide Argumente haben: "für das Wochenende ist mir wichtig, dass" -- und wenn man "für mich" verwendet, verbaut man sich die stilistisch gute Option auf das zweite "für"-Argument. "Für das Wochenende ist für mich wichtig, dass..." klingt mit dem doppelten "für" dann schon verdammt einfach.


----------



## Kajjo

Gernot Back said:


> I wouldn't call this a "freier Dativ" here. _Nur elf Prozent der deutschen Männer_ is an optional dative *complement *of the adjective _wichtig_ here.


Ich habe meine Schwierigkeiten mit diesen scharfen Abgrenzungen. Ich finde den Vorschlag von canoo.net sehr gut, alles einfach als Dativ-Objekt zu bezeichnen, egal ob das Objekt fakultativ oder obligatorisch ist.  Das Konzept "Komplement" mag hier durchaus eine sinnvolle Detaillierung sein, aber als Erklärung für Satzgliedbau reichte mir oben die Darstellung als Objekt aus. Den "freien Dativ" hatte ich aus den vorhergehenden Posts von Berndf übernommen.


----------



## berndf

I did never understand why the difference between a free dative and an optional dative object should matter. I understand why languages without free datives like English need the concept of an optional dative object (or "complement" whatever term you prefer) but I don't understand why German would need both concepts.


----------



## Kajjo

I am glad to hear that you agree to call all of them "dative object". So far I had the feeling you might favor a distinction between a facultative free dative and an obligatory dative object. For me, both are just dative objects and that is easy to explain.


----------



## berndf

I don't think we agree yet. I can't see what the concept of a non-mandatory dative object is good for, if we already have the concept of a free dative. Maybe there is one and I just fail to see it.


----------



## Kajjo

Maybe you could explain why and when you see advantages in differentiating between dative objects and free datives. Canoo accepts the term "dative object" for both categories.

Personally, I cannot see why an "object" has to be mandatory in order to be an object.


----------



## berndf

That is not my problem. My problem is why you need to differentiate between a non-mandatory _dative object_ and a _free dative _as Gernot did. If you call it an object or not doesn't matter. Canoo calls the subsumes the free dative also under dative objects. That is fine with me.


----------



## Kajjo

I see. Why couldn't all three datives be called "dative objects"?


----------



## berndf

I wouldn't mind.


----------



## Kajjo

That's what I meant in #22 und #24. OK.


----------



## berndf

Yes, but I still feel Gernot does want the tree-way-distinction between mandatory dative objects, optional dative objects and free dative. And I have a vague suspicion why: He wants to to distinguish between optional datives that count as a valence of the verb (optional dative object) and those that don't (free dative). And I was hoping he could explain to be why making this distinction would be important or useful.


----------



## Gernot Back

berndf said:


> My problem is why you need to differentiate between a non-mandatory _dative object_ and a _free dative _as Gernot did.


The difference between an _object _or _complement _on the one side  and a _free adverbial_ on the other side is that the former are arguments (Mitspieler/Aktanten) determining the valency of the verb, while the latter don't change that valency; they are simply adjuncts. As in the case of chemical elements (think of the example of iron _Fe_), some verbs may have different valencies at the same time, e.g. anbieten #3, #4, #5. This phenomenon can only be explained with *optional* arguments.


----------



## berndf

That does not address my question. Why would one regard some optional datives as valances of the verb and some not and why is such a distinction necessary or useful?


----------



## Hutschi

Gernot Back said:


> _Wichtig _can have both, a dative or a prepositional complement (object). While _a _complement with _für_ can be used to denote both persons and things, the dative complement is only applicable to humans or at least animate beings with an ego consciousness.
> 
> E.g.: As a teacher in preparation of an exam, I could tell my students sth. like:
> 
> _Das ist mir für die kommende Prüfung wichtig.
> *Das ist der kommenden Prüfung _(für mich)_ wichtig._​



I fully agree here.
"Prüfung" does not have consciousness so it does not fit semantically.

_Das ist der Professorin _(für mich)_ wichtig. _works.

---
Das ist dem Computer/dem Roboter wichtig. - (If the computer is "humanized" (vermenschlicht) it works. "ego consciousness" is only metaphorical, but this is enough in some context.)


----------



## JClaudeK

Kajjo said:


> Maybe you could explain why and when you see advantages in differentiating between dative objects and free datives. Canoo accepts the term "dative object" for both categories.


"Freier Dativ" oder "Dativ Objet" - was soll's ?
Wichtig ist hier für einen Deutschlernenden, dass "ein Dativ" am Anfang des Satzes steht!

Hätte der Satz gelautet:
_Viele*n* deutschen Männer*n* ist eine eigene Familie wichtiger als berufliches Vorankommen. _
so hätte twinklestar den Satz wahrscheinlich auf Anhieb verstanden.


----------



## Kajjo

Gernot Back said:


> The difference between an _object _or _complement _on the one side and a _free adverbial_ on the other side is that the former are arguments (Mitspieler/Aktanten) determining the valency of the verb


The valency of the verb is a good argument. I accept that valency is an important feature of a verb.

You linked to the website IDS-Mannheim and they subsumise _Dativobjekt_, _Dativergänzung_ and _indirektes Objekt _under the term _Dativkomplement_. The term _freier Dativ_ is not listed there.

Gernot, could you give examples for a free dative that is not a _Dativkomplement_ and is not part of the valency and then describe why this is important, please.


----------



## Kajjo

JClaudeK said:


> "Freier Dativ" oder "Dativ Objet" - was soll's? Wichtig ist hier für einen Deutschlernenden, dass "ein Dativ" am Anfang des Satzes steht.


Ja, richtig, sehe ich prinzipiell ja genau so.



JClaudeK said:


> Hätte der Satz gelautet: _Viele*n* deutschen Männer*n* ist eine eigene Familie wichtiger als berufliches Vorankommen. _so hätte twinklestar den Satz wahrscheinlich auf Anhieb verstanden


Genau so ist es. Wäre der Dativ klar erkennbar gewesen, wäre die Frage wahrscheinlich nicht aufgekommen.

@Gernot: Ist "Vielen deutschen Männern" denn hier keine Valenz des Verbs?


----------



## Gernot Back

berndf said:


> That does not address my question. Why would one regard some optional datives as valances of the verb and some not and why is such a distinction necessary or useful?


We are not talking about the primary valency of verbs here, we are talking about their secondary valency derived from a predicative adjective (Rektion der Adjektive). You simply are not free in the choice of the prepositions or cases for the arguments that go with a certain adjective in German. You can only choose to leave that argument out. As in the case of verbs, if you leave out a mandatory argument, that argument is still there implicitly.

_Die Messehostess bietet (den Messebesuchern) Champagner an._​
Likewise, if I say

_Eine eigene Familie ist wichtiger als berufliches Vorankommen_,​
I make a general statement in a sense that, no matter what others think, this should hold true *for everybody*. So I guess, in this case the dative complement of _wichtig _is not even an optional one.

cf.: _anbieten #1_ where the dative complement is not in parentheses, which would mark it as optional as in _anbieten #3, #4_
 Grammatisches Wörterbuch



Kajjo said:


> Gernot, could you give examples for a free dative that is not a _Dativkomplement_ and is not part of the valency and then describe why this is important, please.


Canoo.net makes this distinction:


			
				www.canoo.net said:
			
		

> These types of free datives are not really "free". Therefore, many grammars treat the dativus (in)commodi and the dative of possession as dative objects.


canoonet - Constituents of the sentence: Dative object

If I understand Canoo.net right, the other types of datives, _dativus ethicus_ and _dativus iudicantis_, are thus implicitly categorized as the only truly _free datives_. According to Canoo.net, in these cases the person denoted by the dative plays no direct role in the action denoted by the verb.

However, I doubt even that _dativus ethicus_ and _dativus iudicantis_ are truly _free datives_ in the sense that they are adjuncts, since the do play the thematic role of _experiencers_.

Thematic relation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> However, I doubt even that _dativus ethicus_ and _dativus iudicantis_ are truly _free datives_ in the sense that they are adjuncts, since the do play the thematic role of _experiencers_.


So, in the end, though for different reasons than I, you agree that we need the distinction between _optional dative objects_ and _free datives_ about as urgently as a fish in the ocean needs a bus ticket?


----------



## Perseas

Some thoughts/questions of mine:
1. If "mir" is "freier Dativ" what sort would it be: Dativus Commodi, Dativus Ethicus ....?
2. According to canoo, in the sentence "Er ist seinem Vater sehr ähnlich" is "seinem Vater"  a dative object depending on the adjective "ähnlich" . It's easy to me  to figure out the respective verb "ähneln" that takes a dative object. I mean, we can say "Er ähnelt seinem Vater", where "seinem Vater" is dative object. In the case of "mir ist etwas wichtig" which verb could I think of respectively that takes a dative object? (Maybe "etwas bedeutet mir viel").
canoonet - Satzglieder: Dativobjekt
Thanks a lot.


----------



## Gernot Back

berndf said:


> So, in the end, though for different reasons than I, you agree that we need the distinction between _optional dative objects_ and _free datives_ about as urgently as a fish in the ocean needs a bus ticket?


Yes, I wouldn't speak of _free datives_ at all. Unlike in the case of accusatives there is no such thing as an adverbial (_free_) variant of a dative phrase.


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> Yes, I wouldn't speak of _free datives_ at all. Unlike in the case of accusatives there is no such thing as an adverbial (_free_) variant of a dative phrase.


Good. Then we mean the same concept and only use different words.


----------

