# gehört in der Schule vs. gehört in die Schule



## nookyn

Was soll ich am besten sagen - "etwas gehoert in der Schule" oder "etwas gehoert in die Schule"?

Ich glaube, dass man normalerweise Dativ mit "in" benutzen soll, wenn es keine Bewegung gibt. aber ich haben am Internet geguckt, und habe beide Moeglichkeiten gesehen. z.b “Muttersprache gehört in die Schule”

Vielen dank fuer Hilfe!


----------



## Frank78

Akkusativ wird benötigt.

Schüler gehören in *die* Schule. - *Wohin* gehören die Schüler?

Oder dein Beispiel:
"Muttersprachlicher Unterricht gehört in die Schule".

Etwas eleganter klingt es mit "zu" + Dativ:
"Muttersprachlicher Untericht gehört zur Schule.


----------



## Hutschi

Der Dativ kann durchaus korrekt sein. Das hängt vom Gesamtsatz (Kontext) ab.

Beispiel:

Schüler gehören in der Schule zu den wichtigsten Personen. (wo?)

"Gehören" kann verschiedene Bedeutungen haben.

Schülern (Dativ) gehören in der Schule (dativ) viele Sachen (Nominativ, Subjekt. (Ihnen gehören=sie besitzen).

"Muttersprachlicher Unterricht gehört in *die *Schule". (wohin)
aber:
"Muttersprachlicher Unterricht gehört in *der *Schule zu den wichtigsten Aufgaben in den ersten Klassen". (wo)

Im Normalfall hat Frank aber recht, seine Antwort wird vielleicht 80% aller Anwendungen betreffen. Trotzdem ist es besser, Du gibst nicht nur eine Wortgruppe, sondern Kontext an.


----------



## Demiurg

Es könnte sich prinzipiell sogar um das Partizip Perfekt von "hören" handeln. 

_Ich habe das gehört in der Schule. Unser Lehrer hat davon erzählt._


----------



## Sowka

Demiurg said:


> _Ich habe das gehört in der Schule._



Hallo Demiurg 

Diese Möglichkeit habe ich auch erwogen, aber ich finde die Wortstellung nicht korrekt. Meiner Meinung nach würde dieser Satz nur mit einem Satzzeichen funktionieren, zum Beispiel:

_Ich habe das gehört - in der Schule.

_Wenn man kein Satzzeichen setzt, dann müsste man die Wortstellung einhalten: _Ich habe das in der Schule gehört. Unser Lehrer hat davon erzählt._


----------



## nookyn

Vielen Dank für die Antworten!

Meine Tochter machte Hausaufgaben, und wir haben den folgende Satz gelesen...
"Ich bin eindeutig dafür, da Mode nicht ins Klassenzimmer gehört, finde ich." [EdExcel GCSE German, Seite 53].

Ich fragte mich, ob man Akkusativ oder Dativ benutzen soll. Ich glaubte, dass man hier 'im Klassenzimmer' schreiben soll, weil es keine Bewegung oder Richtung gibt. Aber ich bin Engländer - es kann sein, dass ich die Grammatikregeln nicht 100% verstehe.


----------



## Syzygy

Vielleicht helfen hier einfach ein paar Übersetzungsbeispiele:
Dieser Mann gehört ins Gefängnis. (Akkusativ) - This man belongs in prison. (This man should be in prison.)
Dieser Mann gehört zur Gruppe. (Dativ) - This man belongs to the group. (This man is part of the group.)

"X gehört in der Schule." ist in jedem Fall kein vollständiger Satz.

edit: "in etw. (Akkusativ) gehören" ist übrigens wertend, eventuell umgangssprachlich.
Ein anderes gängiges Analagon im Englischen ist "to belong in a museum".


----------



## Frank78

nookyn said:


> Vielen Dank für die Antworten!
> 
> Meine Tochter machte Hausaufgaben, und wir haben den folgende Satz gelesen...
> "Ich bin eindeutig dafür, da Mode nicht ins Klassenzimmer gehört, finde ich." [EdExcel GCSE German, Seite 53].
> 
> Ich fragte mich, ob man Akkusativ oder Dativ benutzen soll. Ich glaubte, dass man hier 'im Klassenzimmer' schreiben soll, weil es keine Bewegung oder Richtung gibt. Aber ich bin Engländer - es kann sein, dass ich die Grammatikregeln nicht 100% verstehe.



Der Akkusativ stimmt immer noch. 
Obwohl "gehören" als auch die Präposition "in" normalerweise den Dativ verlangen. 

Vielleicht hilft der Tip:
"Ich bin eindeutig dafür, da Mode nicht ins Klassenzimmer gehört, finde ich." - "*Where* does fashion not belong *to?*"

"Where...to" entspricht dem deutschen "Wohin", welches auf den Akkusativ hinweist, während Wo/Where den Dativ verlangt.


----------



## Dan2

Reading the various replies, I suspect that the native German speakers may not realize that this is an especially difficult case for foreigners.  Even to learners who 99% of the time have no problem choosing accusative vs dative after "in", "auf", etc., it's not clear which to choose in this case.

The English "X belongs in Y" is perceived to mean not so much "X should go into Y" (suggesting the accusative) as rather "It is appropriate that X _be _in Y", which I would attempt to translate as "Es ist angemessen/passend, dass X in Y sei.", in which case Y would be in the dative, right?

Note also that the following _English_ tests for _German_ acc vs dat fail in this case:
We say, "X belongs _in_ Y", not "_into_".
We say, "Where does it belong?" not "Where does it belong to?"

On a more general (and humorous) note:
Whenever a foreigner asks about acc. vs dat. after a Wechselpräposition, it seems like the immediate native-German response is to suggest the "wo"-vs-"wohin" test. That may be fine for native speakers, but if we foreigners don't know whether to choose the accusative or the dative, we _sure _don't know whether "wo" or "wohin" is called for!


----------



## berndf

Frank78 said:


> Vielleicht hilft der Tip:
> "Ich bin eindeutig dafür, da Mode nicht ins Klassenzimmer gehört, finde ich." - "*Where* does fashion not belong *to?*"


As Dan pointed out already, you wouldn't say that in English. You could say "Where doesn't fashion belong" - without "to".


----------



## Hutschi

So "where" and "wo" are indeed "false friends" in this case. You cannot use the English "where" for the test. This makes it difficult, indeed.

In case of "ins Klassenzimmer" "wohin" is correct, but if I think about it in German it is a fixed place, not really a direction in many cases.

"Das gehört nicht ins Klassenzimmer." can have too meanings:

1. Das soll nicht *ins *Klassenzimmer gebracht werden. (Here "wohin" works as well grammatically as in content. You show the direction.)
2. Das soll nicht *im *Klassenzimmer sein. (Here it is "wo". It shows the place.) So I think in this case "Das gehört nicht ins Klassenzimmer" is an idiom and cannot be explained as sum of the parts. You should ask "wo" but asks "wohin". I was not aware of this difficulty until our discussion.


----------



## berndf

Hutschi said:


> So "where" and "wo" are indeed "false friends". You cannot use the English "where" for the test.


In general, "where to"="wohin" and "where"="wo" is a good heuristic. Only in this case it breaks down, as Dan explained. In German "gehört in" has always the connotation of being moved or having been moved to the place it belongs. In English "belong to" does not have this connotation.


----------



## dec-sev

Syzygy said:


> Dieser Mann gehört ins Gefängnis. (Akkusativ) - This man belongs in prison. (This man should be in prison.)
> Dieser Mann gehört zur Gruppe. (Dativ) - This man belongs to the group. (This man is part of the group.)


Das macht alles klar. 
Verwendet man "gehören", wenn man auf Deutsch das Englishe "to put smb. to where they belong" sagst?
Soviel ich weiß, bedeutet die Phrase "jemandem sienen Platz anwiesen" (im übertragenen Sinne).


----------



## Syzygy

"where they belong" kann man, glaube ich, immer mit "wo sie hingehören" (oder auch "wohin sie gehören") übersetzen.
Eine Wendung "jemandem seinen Platz anweisen" kenne ich im übertragenen Sinne nur aus dem Englischen: "to put someone in his place", was halb-wörtlich soviel wie "zurechtweisen" heißt.


----------



## Hutschi

Ich kenne es im wörtlichen Sinne aus dem Kino, allerdings gibt es Platzanweiser schon lange nicht mehr.


----------



## Syzygy

Dan2 said:


> Note also that the following _English_ tests for _German_ acc vs dat fail in this case:
> We say, "X belongs _in_ Y", not "_into_".
> We say, "Where does it belong?" not "Where does it belong to?"


Couldn't this be one of these "shortened Where's" where you omit the preposition?
In "Where do you want to go?" or "Where should I put this?" the "where" clearly indicates a destination not the location of an action.
Even if most people don't expand I think "Where do you want to go to?" and "Where should I put this in?" are, grammatically speaking, still as valid as, for example "Where does this man belong in?"

On a side note, I remember hearing about an interesting German study about differences in thinking induced by native language patterns. Looking at the same picture German natives tended to focus on destination and described it as "Der Mann geht zum Haus.", while the English natives mostly perceived the action as more important and just answered, "The man walks down the road."
Unfortunately I don't recall the exact source.


----------



## Demiurg

Syzygy said:


> Eine Wendung "jemandem seinen Platz anweisen" kenne ich im übertragenen Sinne nur aus dem Englischen: "to put someone in his place", was halb-wörtlich soviel wie "zurechtweisen" heißt.


Ich kenne die Redewendung "jemandem seinen Platz *zu*weisen/aufzeigen" aus der Erziehung bzw. Dressur.


----------



## nookyn

Thank you all for the further replies.

I realise now that the rule I was taught in school (and which my daughter is now being taught) is not 100% accurate.
I was taught to use accusative after Wechselpräpositionen when there is "motion towards" something or somewhere.
I also learned an alternative rule based on "going into", but neither of these rules seemed to cover this case.

Dan is absolutely right about the wo-wohin test - I have never heard of it, and (as a non-native speaker) I would not be able to use it with confidence.

Incidentally, there is a seldom-used word in English - wherein - which may be relevant in this context.
We would say "wherein lies the difference?" rather than "where lies the difference?",
but unfortunately "wherein belong the students" sounds unnatural - "where do the students belong" would be preferred.


----------



## Syzygy

"Wherein" seems to me to be equivalent to the German "worin" which indicates only a location and not a destination. For the latter I would still use "wohin", there's also "wo hinein" but that sounds colloquial to me.
So, to me, "wherein lies the difference" works because you're looking for the "place in which" the difference "resides", so to speak.
As non-native I can't be sure but to my mind it doesn't work for "wherein belongs ..." because "belong in sth." _does_ indicate direction like my earlier examples "go to" or "put in" which can lose their preposition with "where".


----------



## berndf

Syzygy said:


> Couldn't this be one of these "shortened Where's" where you omit the preposition?
> In "Where do you want to go?" or "Where should I put this?" the "where" clearly indicates a destination not the location of an action.
> Even if most people don't expand I think "Where do you want to go to?" and "Where should I put this in?" are, grammatically speaking, still as valid as, for example "Where does this man belong in?"


In principle it could have been so but in this case it isn't. "To belong in/with X" is an originally American extension of the construction "to belong here/there". You can say "something belongs to me" but not *"something belongs to here". The preposition "to" in connection with the verb "to belong" always points towards the owner and never toward the location. There is "X belongs to Y" and "X belongs in Y" but those are quite different things and cannot be mixed.



nookyn said:


> I realise now that the rule I was taught in school  (and which my daughter is now being taught) is not 100% accurate.
> I was taught to use accusative after Wechselpräpositionen when there is  "motion towards" something or somewhere.


The "accusative of  destination" is used to reference a target, destination or goal of an  actions. It does not have to be related to a physical movement. The  dative expresses the location (spacial and temporal) of an action, the  conditions under which they occur or a point of departure.

But in this case, "etwas gehört in die Schule" actually does  imply the notion of a physical movement. This is even true, if the  object is already where it belongs. As Dan explained,  "X belongs in Y"  means in this case "it is appropriate that X _be _in Y" whereas "X gehört in Y" means "it is appropriate that X _have been moved _into Y".


----------



## Syzygy

berndf said:


> In principle it could have been so but in this case it isn't. "To belong in/with X" is an originally American extension of the construction "to belong here/there". You can say "something belongs to me" but not *"something belongs to here". The preposition "to" in connection with the verb "to belong" always points towards the owner and never toward the location. There is "X belongs to Y" and "X belongs in Y" but those are quite different things and cannot be mixed.


I am aware of the difference between "to belong to" and "to belong in" and I still think that it is analogous to the one in German between "zu etw. gehören" and "in etw. gehören".
The construction "to belong there" can be construed as missing the original directional preposition, just like "to go there" or "to put there", so I'm not convinced by this particular argument. And just as you can't say "something belongs to here" you can't say "he puts it to there" or "he goes to there" (maybe I should add a fresh example highlighting the directional character like "he heads there").

edit: I just recalled that in English you can use "to belong" as "dazugehören"/"seinen Platz haben" without object which arguably might dilute the distinction between location and direction when you use it with object. Still, I would say that the "here" in "Here, I belong." refers to location while in "I belong here." it refers to direction.


----------



## berndf

Syzygy said:


> Still, I would say that the "here" in "Here, I belong." refers to location while in "I belong here." it refers to direction.


You could interpret it this way but English native simply don't do this, as Dan explained. That is why *"it belongs into school" sounds so terribly odd in English.


----------



## Syzygy

I don't know. I would feel better if more people told me to be wrong.
When I look at "What information belongs in/on a résumé?" for example I have the distinct feeling of direction not place. It's not as if the information were already on the résumé asking itself if it belonged there. I think in most cases "belong in" is used when the person/thing in question isn't yet where it belongs, so has to move there, albeit sometimes figuratively.
I do agree, though, that even if I'm right it's hard to guess whether to use accusative or dative based on the feeling of direction instead of a tangible indicator word.


----------



## Dan2

If I'm reading the last few posts correctly, I would say that Syzygy is correct that there is an important ambiguity in English "belong in", "belong there", etc., and that berndf is correct that, nevertheless, none of them imply "motion towards".

The sentence,
"The children belong in school"
can mean
1. "They _are_ in school, which is appropriate" (typically spoken as They BELONG in school).
or
2. "They're _not_ in school, but _should _be."
(Similarly for things like  "Foreign language classes belong in the schools", etc.)
But even under reading (2), "in" in "They belong in school" is the "in" of location, not movement-to.
[[In Post 11, Hutschi has a very clear description of how this ambiguity works in German.]]

Also relevant to this discussion:
The normal modern-English equivalent of both "wo" and "wohin" is "where" (Where are you?, Where did you go?).
In the "wohin" case, "to" is optional (Where did you go to?), used mostly for emphasis or stylistically.
[[But "where...to" can usually be used for tests of wo vs wohin: Where are you going to? Good, therefore "wohin".  Where are you to? Bad, thus "wo".]]
Similarly, both "dort" and "dorthin" are normally "there".

The situation is different with respect to "in":
At least for careful speakers of English, what corresponds to "in + Akk"  is "into", while "in + Dat" is "in".
Colloquially, however, many people will say, "He ran in the house" whether they mean "im Haus" or "ins Haus".

Finally, Sysergy wrote,
"The construction "to belong there" can be construed as missing the original directional preposition, just like "to go there" or "to put there", so I'm not convinced by this particular argument. And just as you can't say "something belongs to here" you can't say "he puts it to there" or "he goes to there""
This is correct. "there", whether it means "dort" or "dorthin", has the preposition "built-in":  "there" usually means "in that place" or "to that place", so we shouldn't be asking whether one says "belongs to there". (But, as already discussed, there are other arguments establishing that "belong there" has the "dort", not "dorthin", reading in English.)

Sysergy: "When I look at "What information belongs in/on a résumé?" for example I have the distinct feeling of direction not place."
We're gonna have to "agree to disagree" on this! (What are people saying about the Whorf hypothesis these days?...)


----------



## Syzygy

Thanks for your clarifications Dan, so I guess English natives associate "belonging somewhere" as "should _be_ there", as you already said, while German natives see it as "should be _put_ there".


----------

