# Man Bites Dog



## twinklestar

Hello,

I am thinking of  an English phrase in journalism - Man bites dog.

Here are my translation if they are correct.

Mann beißt Hund.

Hund beißt Mann.

How do I know whether that is "Man bites dog" or "Dog bites man" if without further context? The question that bothers me is how to know whether "Mann" is accusative or subjective as the sentence does follow V2.

Thank you!

EDIT:

I suddenly remember a rule. For such a case, I need to weaken the accusative noun with suffixes-n, -en. Is that correct?

Mann beißt Hunden. =Man bites dog.

Hunden beißt Mann. = Man bites dog.

EDIT 2:fixed English grammar


----------



## Löwenfrau

I'd say in your examples the very word order tells you: the first noun is always the subject, the second noun is the object.


----------



## twinklestar

Thank you for your help.

Should I weaken the objective noun-Hund?

My textbook about grammar illustrates:

Sie besucht Herrn Li.

"Herr" should be weaken with suffix-n.


----------



## Dan2

twinklestar said:


> I am thinking of an English phrase in jouralism - Man bites dog.


You may already be aware of this, but "Man bites dog" is not a grammatical sentence of English.  It is an imitation of a style used in newspaper headlines where articles and other relatively unimportant words are left out to save space.

Returning to German, only certain nouns add an -n or -en in the accusative - the great majority do not.  "Herr" is one of those special nouns; "Hund" is not.  And those special nouns also add the -n in the dative and genitive.

Also, "weaken" is not the right word here.  Nouns are "declined".


----------



## twinklestar

Thank you for your help, Dan. 

Have a great day, Löwenfrau and Dan.


----------



## Kajjo

_Mann beißt Hund <headline style>
Hund beißt Mann <headline style>_

As Dan2 pointed out, this is headline style and not a proper German sentence. In this case, the general rule is that explained by Löwenfrau, the first noun is the subject. This is quite easy and otherwise it would not work in headlines. If it should be necessary to avoid possible misunderstanding under all circumstances, you have to rephrase the sentence to passive:

_Hund von Mann gebissen <headline style>_

In proper German sentences the articles solve the problem in most cases:

_Der Mann beißt den Hund.
Den Hund beißt der Mann.
Der Hund wurde vom Mann gebissen.
_
The other way round, the more typical way of bites:
_
Der Hund beißt den Mann.
Den Mann beißt der Hund.
Der Mann wurde vom Hund gebissen._



twinklestar said:


> I suddenly remember a rule. For such a case, I need to weaken the accusative noun with suffixes-n, -en. Is that correct?


No, that is not correct. Forget the idea.


----------



## twinklestar

Kajjo said:


> No, that is not correct. Forget the idea.



Do you mean that is entirely wrong* or *as Dan explained as below:



Dan2 said:


> Returning to German, only certain nouns add an -n or -en in the accusative - the great majority do not. "Herr" is one of those special nouns;



Are the following sentences correct?

Sie besucht Herrn Li.

Sie besucht Herr Li.


----------



## Kajjo

Sie besucht Herrn Li.
 Sie besucht Herr Li.



> For such a case, I need to weaken the accusative noun with suffixes-n, -en."


Several ideas are wrong in this statement. First of all, there is no such thing as "for such a case" -- declination of nouns follows strict rules and does not consider possible misunderstanding. Secondly, declination is not to be understood as "weakening". Thirdly, only a few declination classes use "-n" in accusative.

The word "Herr" is one of the words that are actually suffixed "-n" in accusative. Thus, your new example is correct. However, the accusative of "Hund" is "Hund". You must not use any suffix.

You can use canoo.net to look up all declination forms of a noun or conjugation forms of a verb: canoonet - Herr - Wortformen, Flexion, Beugung, Deklination, Konjugation


----------



## twinklestar

Thank you very much for your help and clarification.

My book explained that as "weakening" in Chinese. Now I realise that was a misnomer.


----------



## Kajjo

twinklestar said:


> My book explained that as "weakening" in Chinese. Now I realise that was a misnomer.


Maybe it's just a terminology issue. That doesn't really matter. But in English I would say "declension" or "inflection" and in German I would talk about "Deklination" for nouns and "Konjugation" for verbs.

There are "weak", "strong" and "mixed" declination classes for nouns, though. A noun belongs to one of these classes. You cannot choose which declination to use. However, declining a noun by weak declination is not "weakening" the noun, it's inflecting or declining the noun.

http://www.deutschunddeutlich.de/contentLD/GD/GGr1baDeklination.pdf


----------



## berndf

Kajjo said:


> As Dan2 pointed out, this is headline style and not a proper German sentence.


The problem is not restricted to "headline style".

_Drei Hunde beißen mehrere Männer. _

is a flawless German sentence and ambiguous. In spoken language stress pattern disambiguates the sentence, in written language one would rephrase.


----------



## Kajjo

berndf said:


> The problem is not restricted to "headline style".


That's true. Ambiguity is not very often, but not rare as well. Usually the context and stress makes it clear.



berndf said:


> in written language one would rephrase.


I believe this hint is important: Ambuigity is either intended or avoided in written German.


----------



## Sowka

Guten Morgen 



berndf said:


> _Drei Hunde beißen mehrere Männer. _
> 
> is a flawless German sentence and ambiguous. In spoken language stress pattern disambiguates the sentence, in written language one would rephrase.


I would not rephrase the sentence because as it is written, the natural understanding (which coincides with everyday perception) is that "drei Hunde" is the subject of the sentence, and "mehrere Männer" is the accusative object. This is the normal, unmarked way of speaking, and this is the normal course of events.

I would rephase the sentence only if I intended to express the unusual event:
"Drei Hunde wurden von mehreren Männern gebissen"
(there is still something unusual about this because the (small) number of victims is specified whereas the number of  agressors is not)


----------



## twinklestar

Morning everyone.



Löwenfrau said:


> I'd say in your examples the very word order tells you: *the first noun is always the subject, the second noun is the object.*





berndf said:


> _Drei Hunde beißen mehrere Männer. _
> 
> is a flawless German sentence and ambiguous.



I don't understand why it is ambiguous. Löwenfrau commented the first noun is always the subject. Is that not accurate?

Of course, if the men were mentally ill, they would attack three dogs.


----------



## Sowka

twinklestar said:


> I don't understand why it is ambiguous. Löwenfrau commented the first noun is always the subject. Is that not accurate?


In the German main clause, the only element that is fixed is the "conjugated verb in second position". You may move around the other elements:
_
Ich sehe den Mann.
Den Mann sehe ich. _(Edit: This word order is a little unusual; you would use it only in particular contexts, for example: "Den Mann sehe ich, die Frau jedoch nicht". But it's a good German sentence. )


----------



## twinklestar

Sowka said:


> In the German main clause, the only element that is fixed is the "verb in second position". You may move around the other element:



Thank you Sowka and everyone again. 

That was why I was puzzled originally.


----------



## berndf

twinklestar said:


> Löwenfrau commented the first noun is always the subject. Is that not accurate?


No, phrased like this it is definitely not accurate. The most important part is first. LF's rule only applies, if the both nouns occur after the verb. Examples:
_Mir gab er das Buch.
Mir gab das Buch er.
Heute sehe ich meinen Chef.
Heute sehe meinen Chef ich.
_
One might discuss if the sentences marked  are ungrammatical in a strict sense but they are certainly so unusual that in practice it amounts to the same thing.


----------



## berndf

Kajjo said:


> I believe this hint is important: Ambuigity is either intended or avoided in written German


----------



## Kajjo

twinklestar said:


> I don't understand why it is ambiguous. Löwenfrau commented the first noun is always the subject. Is that not accurate?


Löwenfrau correctly explained that in ambigious cases you take the default order as intended order and interpret the first noun as subject.

In #6 I gave the two correct possibilities of order.

_Der Mann beißt den Hund. <default order>
Den Hund beißt der Mann. <unusual order, emphasis>_

Both sentences mean the same, both orders are correct. The second sentence is unusual and only used if you want to emphasise and stress a certain part.

_Drei Hunde beißen die Männer. 
Die Männer beißen drei Hunde.
_
Both sentences carry some ambiguity, because both nouns could be subject, because accusative and nominative are identical here.

By default, as Löwenfrau explained, the first noun is interpreted as subject. However, context or stress can change this reception. If there is no ambiguity involved, many sentences deviate from the default order to emphasise one part.



Sowka said:


> I would not rephrase the sentence because as it is written, the natural understanding


Yes, as long as the context and natural understanding corresponds with the default order (subject first), rephrasing is usually not necessary. Ambiguity only arises if context is unclear or the order deviates from default. The shorter the sentence and the less context available, the more unnatural a sentence sounds and the more difficult it is to have a natural feeling for it, though.

I believe, the passive is so popular because it resolves this ambiguity and also emphasises the object. In this sense, "rephrasing" is very common, i.e. you phrase the sentence correctly at the first try...

_Die Männer wurden von drei Hunden gebissen.
Drei Hunde wurden von den Männern gebissen._


----------



## berndf

Kajjo said:


> Löwenfrau correctly explained that in ambigious cases you take the default order as intended order and interpret the first noun as subject.


I am afraid "default" does not suffice as an explanation, if you don't specify defaulting rules.

The defaulting rule TS "subject first", is too simplistic. I would say the rule defaulting rule should be:
The default interpretation is that which is contextually obvious, e.g., in _Kuchen aßen die Damen_, the default interpretation is _Kuchen_=object. The default-defaulting rule "subject first" only applies, if there is no obvious interpretation.


----------



## Kajjo

berndf said:


> The default interpretation is that which is contextually obvious


Well, yes and no. If there actually _is_ ambiguity, the default order is taken as default solution. I believe, it is more a question of when calling a sentence ambigious. _Kuchen_ and _Damen_ is content-wise not ambigious at all, that's why it works without problem. _Kuchen_ can only eat a lady in a comic.

Again, the default order is subject-first:

_Die Damen aßen Kuchen.
_
The unusual order is quite non-idiomatic and requires a special context to work as intuitive, idiomatic statement. This context then would solve the ambiguity before it even arises.
_
Kuchen aßen die Damen._


----------



## berndf

Kajjo said:


> Again, the default order is subject-first


I do not agree.

In linguistics one would call _subject verb object_ the "unmarked" word order, i.e. the one that does not convey emphasis. I think, that is what you meant: In the absence of disambiguating case markers or, if absent, context, one would assume the sentence ("by default") to be unmarked and interpret it accordingly.

In _
Kuchen aßen die Damen._
the interpretation is obvious and one would therefore understand the word order as "marked", i.e. conveying special emphasis, viz. on what (cake) the ladies ate.


----------



## Kajjo

berndf said:


> In linguistics one would call _subject verb object_ the "unmarked" word order,


Yes, and this unmarked word order I called default order. As I stated before, every other order is emphasised ('"marked").

I think, "default" vs "not marked" is easy to correlate.


----------



## berndf

Explicitly using the concept of markedness allows us to give more meaningful and precise explanations which I found lacking in your phrasing. It is obvious to a native speaker that word order is linked to markedness but not necessarily so to a foreign learner, especially not for someone with a mother tongue that is so distant from German as TS's.


----------



## Löwenfrau

berndf said:


> No, phrased like this it is definitely not accurate.





berndf said:


> I am afraid "default" does not suffice as an explanation, if you don't specify defaulting rules.



I said in #2:



Löwenfrau said:


> I'd say *in your examples *the very word order tells you: the first noun is always the subject, the second noun is the object.



I wouldn't say that wasn't accurate, I'd say is was incomplete, without a full explanation. The 'always' might be ambiguous if you don't pay attention to "in your examples". I was sure a native would explain it in a more satisfactory way... Anyways, I'm sorry if this caused any confusion.


----------



## berndf

Löwenfrau said:


> I wouldn't say that wasn't accurate, I'd say is was incomplete, without a full explanation. The 'always' might be ambiguous if you don't pay attention to "in your examples". I was sure a native would explain it in a more satisfactory way... Anyways, I'm sorry if this caused any confusion.


What I said was that TS's *phrasing* of your explanation (the text I quoted) was inaccurate. I didn't say nor did I mean to imply the your original explanation was inaccurate.


----------



## Kajjo

berndf said:


> Explicitly using the concept of markedness allows us to give more meaningful and precise explanations which I found lacking in your phrasing


I am not so sure as you. 

Using "default order" and "if deviate from default order, this is emphasis" is quite easy to understand, while the linguistic conceot of "markedness" might be unknown to most learners. Anyway, Ii think this is a matter of terminology and no of concept. We mean the same.

There is a default order or unmarked order. Then there are intentional deviations from unmarked or default order. I cannot see a major difference in the phrasing.


----------



## berndf

Kajjo said:


> Using "default order" and "if deviate from default order, this is emphasis" is quite easy to understand,


This is a property of the German language, not of universal logic, sorry.


----------



## Löwenfrau

berndf said:


> What I said was that TS's *phrasing* of your explanation (the text I quoted) was inaccurate. I didn't say nor did I mean to imply the your original explanation was inaccurate.



Oh, I'm sorry!


----------



## elroy

In my view, the answer here is pretty simple:

In the absence of inflections on either of the nouns, _any_ sentence of the form noun-verb-noun is going to be *syntactically* ambiguous.  Semantics, context, tone of voice, and other factors may rule out one of the readings, but otherwise, one of the two readings may be _more likely_, but not entirely impossible.


----------



## Kajjo

elroy said:


> In the absence of inflections on either of the nouns, _any_ sentence of the form noun-verb-noun is going to be *syntactically* ambiguous. Semantics, context, tone of voice, and other factors may rule out one of the readings, but otherwise, one of the two readings may be _more likely_, but not entirely impossible.


 Yes!


----------



## twinklestar

@Löwenfrau:  Sorry I misintrepreted your words.

@Everyone

Thank you for your elucidation.


----------

