# Dafür muss ich das Öl in dem Glas abgießen.



## candel

Hi, concerning this phrase: Dafür muss ich das Öl in dem Glas abgießen. 

Why is it dative? it is from a cooking recipe. Help appreciated.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

The oil, which is in the glass, has to be poured off.
dative of place

_in das Glas _would be accusative of direction, in which case the oil would have to be poured _​into the glass._


----------



## Frank78

Schimmelreiter said:


> _in das Glas _would be accusative of direction, in which case the oil would have to be poured _​into the glass._



Accusative of destination would be more correct because it's also "Öl aus dem Glas abgießen".


----------



## candel

It seems to me there is motion...accusative...if you will have such rules I beg you stick to them for else we are going to go round the bend working where everything was, is and is going..


----------



## Schimmelreiter

There's no motion in the nominal phrase _das Öl in dem Glas.

__I have to pour off the oil in the glass. _No _into_​!


----------



## Glockenblume

_Dafür muss ich das Öl in dem Glas abgießen._ : "das Öl in dem Glas" is 1 groupe, you could also say :
_Dafür muss ich das Öl, das in dem Glas ist, abgießen_.

_Dafür muss ich das Öl aus dem Glas abgießen._ : "das Öl" ist 1 groupe and "aus dem Glas" is 1 groupe

Like Schimmelreiter, I prefer "_Dafür muss ich das Öl aus dem Glas abgießen."_, but the sentence you found in the cooking book, is correct, too.


----------



## berndf

candel said:


> It seems to me there is motion...accusative...if you will have such rules I beg you stick to them for else we are going to go round the bend working where everything was, is and is going..


Forget "motion". That is a red herring. The contrast is between _ablative _(where from?), _locative _(where?) and _destinative _(where to?). In German the ablative and locative are expressed by a the dative case and destinative by the accusative case. Once (a long time ago), ablative and locative where separate cases but in Germanic languages their meanings have been absorbed by the dative.


----------



## jcpjcp

I think it is meant: 

                    Dafür muss ich das Öl, *das sich in dem Glas befindet*,  abgießen.


----------



## berndf

jcpjcp said:


> I think it is meant:
> 
> Dafür muss ich das Öl, *das sich in dem Glas befindet*,  abgießen.


Ja.


----------



## candel

Written thus, it seems a little unclear, written so: Dafür muss ich das Öl, *das sich in dem Glas befindet*,  abgießen, it is very clear....


should it be punctuated so: Dafür muss ich das Öl, in dem Glas, abgießen...?


----------



## berndf

No, "in dem Glas" is not a clause.

Remember that the main purpose of the comma in German is to separate clauses (not the only but the main purpose). This is very different from the role it plays in English.


----------



## candel

The translation given is: For that, I have to pour out the oil in the jar.So the oil is not as yet in the jar, so the oil must move....so there is motion?

more context:

         Das Öl ist nun heiß genug. Die Knoblauchzehen können in die Pfanne.     
                  The oil is now hot enough. The garlic cloves can [go] into the pan.     

     56.
              Als nächstes schneide ich nun den Thymian noch ein wenig klein.     
                  Next, I now cut the thyme [into] small [pieces].     

     57.
              Als letztes werde ich nun die Sardellen kleinschneiden.     
                  Finally, I'm going to cut the anchovies [into] small [pieces].     

     58.
              Dafür muss ich das Öl in dem Glas abgießen.     
                  For that, I have to pour out the oil in the jar.     
<...>


----------



## berndf

The translation of that sentence is terrible. It treats _pour out_ as a phrasal verb with the same semantics as the German verb _abgießen_ (=_to discharge a liquid from a container by pouring it out of that container_).

I can only once again suggest you forget this flawed explanation in terms of _motion_. This forum is packed questions from people who had tried to apply this _motion vs. rest _heuristic and end up completely confused because it yielded the wrong result in the sentences at question.


----------



## Hutschi

The translation given is: For that, I have to pour out the oil in the jar.So the oil is not as yet in the jar, so the oil must move....so there is motion?

more context:

         Das Öl ist nun heiß genug. Die Knoblauchzehen können in die Pfanne _(getan werden/kommen = possible movement)_.     
                  The oil is now hot enough. The garlic cloves can [go] into the pan.     

     56.
              Als nächstes schneide ich nun den Thymian noch ein wenig klein.   (There is no connection to the movement, but "schneide" requires accussative) 
                  Next, I now cut the thyme [into] small [pieces].     

     57.
              Als letztes werde ich nun die Sardellen kleinschneiden. (kleinschneiden requires accussative) 
                  Finally, I'm going to cut the anchovies [into] small [pieces].     

     58.
              Dafür muss ich *das Öl in dem Glas* abgießen.    (Semantic context indicates - In dem Glas does not mean that I am in the glass and want to pour out the oil, but it means I want to pour out the oil that is in the glass. This was mentioned above in #8. sich befinden indicates the place without movement. It requires Dative; the phrase is an abbreviation, and I would consider it as coll. usage.) "In dem Glas" is part of the noun phrase.
                  For that, I have to pour out the oil in the jar.     

Note: 
58.1. Usually I would write: _Dafür muss ich das Öl *aus dem Glas abgießen*. In this case there is the movement from the oil out of the jar. "Aus dem Glas" is part of the verb phrase._ 
58.2. Dafür muss ich das Öl *in das Glas abgießen*. _"In das Glas" is part of the verb phrase._ Here you have the movement into the jar. Movement with destination - accussative. It is the contrary movement from 1.
in 58. the oil is not in movement, but it only tells you the place.

You have to find out whether it is part of the noun phrase or of the verb phrase.

     59.
              Oh ja! Das Gemüse ist weich genug. Der Knoblauch ist auch so weit.     
                  Oh yes! The vegetables are soft enough. The garlic is also done [idiom: so far[/QUOTE]


----------



## candel

I thimk as it is actually spoken speech maybe the language spoken was less than fully elaborate....here German is a little less straightforward than most other languages...In English the preposition gives the game away about motion or rest...because the definite artcle doesn't change there is little room for confusion like here...aus dem Glas in das andere Glas...would this mean movement from one glass to another?


----------



## berndf

candel said:


> I thimk as it is actually spoken speech maybe the language spoken was less than fully elaborate....here German is a little less strasightforwartd than most other languages...In English the preposition gives the game away about motion or rest...because the definite artcle doesn't change there is little room for confusion like here...aus dem Glas in das andere Glas...would this mean movement from one glass to another?



*Apparently you still haven't noticed it, so let me repeat it for a third time:*


berndf said:


> I can only once again suggest you *forget *this flawed explanation in terms of *motion*. This forum is packed questions from people who had tried to apply this _motion vs. rest _heuristic and end up completely confused because it yielded the wrong result in the sentences at question.


----------



## candel

In my previous post I was thinking aloud about why this confusion occurs:
  Originally Posted by *berndf*                                                    I can only once again suggest you *forget *this flawed explanation in terms of *motion*. This forum is packed questions from people who had tried to apply this _motion vs. rest _heuristic and end up completely confused because it yielded the wrong result in the sentences at question.

For me she is saying the oil which is in the glass has to be poured off or out...if that is incorrect then I am well into the rough here 
(golfing metaphor)


----------



## berndf

candel said:


> In my previous post I was thinking aloud about why this confusion occurs:


Ok, I see. But this is not a confusion that occurs withing the German language (you wrote: "here German is a little less straightforward than most other languages") but occurs as a result of the way this particular trait of the language is explained to foreign speakers.

To a native speaker this sentence does not cause confusion.



candel said:


> For me she is saying the oil which is in the glass has to be poured off or out...


That is correct.


----------



## Hutschi

candel said:


> ...aus dem Glas in das andere Glas...would this mean movement from one glass to another?



Yes, in principle. But it is not "from one/an" but "from *this* glass *into the other* one"


----------



## candel

You mean only a demonstrative pronoun Hutschi? Aus einem Glas in das andere would fit the other example you cite though?


----------



## berndf

candel said:


> You mean only a demonstrative pronoun Hutschi? *Aus einem Glas in das andere* would fit the other example you cite though?


Almost: _from one glass [in]to another = _a_us/von einem Glas in *ein* andere*s*._


----------



## Hutschi

1. aus einem Glas in das andere = from one glas into the other
2. aus dem Glas in das andere = from the/this glas into the other
3. aus dem Glas in das andere Glas = from this glas into the other
4. aus einem Glas in ein anderes = from one glass into another

Hi, candel,

we have the situation in 1) that there are two glasses, in 4) the amount of glasses is undefined.
In 2.) and 3.) it is a demonstrative pornoun, as far as I see. But in 2 I am not sure.
The cause is symmetry. 

In Context it may also be an article.

Ich nehme ein Glas Wasser. Dann schütte ich das Wasser aus dem Glas in das andere. (I think, it should be here "In ein anderes", if there is no context that there are two glasses.)

But if there is no context, it is not defined and so I can only show it.

Otherwise I would say "aus dem einen Glas in das andere." - Here it is an article.


----------



## candel

Hi Hutschi, thanks for going to such trouble to explain things for me, always generous in your efforts...


----------

