# sich verstecken unter dem Tisch / den Tisch



## jcpjcp

hello everybody

I have read this sentence in a book. It says: 

_"Er hat sich unter *dem *Tisch versteckt." _

I want to ask if we can use Akusativ in this sentence . Is it possible to say like this:

_"Er hat sich unter *den *Tisch versteckt." _

Thanks a lot


----------



## Sowka

Hello jcpjcp 



jcpjcp said:


> _"Er hat sich unter *dem *Tisch versteckt." _
> 
> I want to ask if we can use Akusativ in this sentence. Is it possible to say like this:
> 
> _"Er hat sich unter *den *Tisch versteckt."_



"Er hat sich versteckt" means that he is in that place right now; therefore, dative is required. Accusative indicates a movement in a direction, for example:
"Er krabbelt unter den Tisch, um sich dort zu verstecken".


----------



## jcpjcp

Then, this sentence is correct ? I want to know* if reflexive verbs can be used with Akusativ to indicate the movement .
*_
"Er hat sich unter *den *Tisch versteckt."  

_Thanks a lot.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

I see your point. But no, the accusative of direction is not possible with either _etwas verstecken _or _sich verstecken.
_​You couldn't, in English, hide anything in*to *or on*to* something, either (which would be the equivalent of the accusative of direction).

When it comes to the unprefixed _stecken (to put/stick)_, though, the accusative of direction is of course possible.


----------



## jcpjcp

It is clear now.

Thanks a lot Sowka and Schimmelreiter.


----------



## jcpjcp

I have understood that refxlexive verbs cannot be used with Akusative to indicate the movement to somewhere. But I have come across this sentences in a story:

*Der Hund legt sich neben die Katze hin. *
and
*Die Katze legt sich zwischen die Pfoten des Hundes.*

Are these sentences correct ?  Or have I understood things wrong ?


----------



## berndf

jcpjcp said:


> I have understood that refxlexive verbs cannot be used with Akusative to indicate the movement to somewhere.


No, that wasn't said. It is *specifically *the verb _verstecken_ *and *_sich verstecken _that cannot be used with the directive accusative. This is due to the semantics of the verb _verstecken _and has nothing to do with whether a verb is reflexive or not.


----------



## TeruTeruMomiji

berndf said:


> No, that wasn't said. It is *specifically *the verb _verstecken_ *and *_sich verstecken _that cannot be used with the directive accusative. This is due to the semantics of the verb _verstecken _and has nothing to do with whether a verb is reflexive or not.



Hello,

I have more a less the same miscomprehension as jcpjcp : 
"Das Kind versteckt sich *unter* dem Tisch." (correct form)
and I don't understand why "unter" is followed by a dative here. I would have written :
"Das Kind versteckt sich *unter* de*n* Tisch." 
because when you are hiding under the table, there is a notion of movement, of going under the table, right ?

According to my German lessons, with the preposition "unter" you either use the dative to indicate the place where you are (locative) or the place where you move/go (directive). Is this explanation not complete ?


----------



## berndf

There are to ways to understand the phrase:
(1) _He moves under the table and then hides there._
(2) _He hides by moving under the table._
Both are logical. In German, interpretation (1) prevails. There is nothing logical or necessary about this. It is simply how it is.

As a matter of fact _Er versteckt sich unter de*n* Tisch _sounds perfectly logical and intuitively understandable to me but the same is true for _Er versteckt sich unter de*m* Tisch._ I guess people have just made a choice among two equally possible interpretations.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

berndf said:


> _Er versteckt sich unter de*n* Tisch _sounds perfectly logical [...] to me.


Not to me. _(sich) verstecken _is synonymous with _(sich) verbergen. _Nobody would think of using the latter directively. Don't be misguided by the directiveness of _​stecken.


_PS
Neither do you hide _into _a room in English.


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> Nobody would think of using the latter directively. Don't be misguided by the directiveness of _​stecken._


Our understanding differ. I do not use _verbergen _und _verstecken _as exact synonyms. _Verbergen_ carries the notion of covering something, i.e. moving objects other then the object you want to hide. _Verstecken _is achieved by moving the object you want to hide itself. This often amounts to the same thing but there is a difference in how one visualizes the action; at least for me it does.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

You're right.


----------



## bearded

This discussion reminds me of another old one concerning the verb 'ankommen'. It is clear that several verbs, which in other languages are regarded as verbs of movement/direction (and of course they are regarded as such in the minds of the speakers of those languages), are on the contrary considered just static location verbs in German.  I remember discussions with my teacher - when I started learning German long ago - concerning sentences like _er kam an den/dem Markt an_  or  _er versteckte sich hinter die/der Tür.  _It is - for foreigners - one of the (so many) difficulties of the German language.  Like jcpjcp, I instinctively understand 'ankommen' as 'to move and arrive', and 'sich verstecken' as 'to go and hide', and even today I must make an effort in order to remember that Germans conceive such verbs differently.
May I add (without offense to anyone) that I find the explanations given by Germans concerning their 'static' constructions, as pure 'rationalizations'. Everyone considers their own language perfectly logical.... My opinion is that only the usage/Gebrauch is king in this matter.


----------



## berndf

In the case with _ankommen_, things are a bit clearer. The root _kommen _indicates that the perspective is from the destination towards the person/thing arriving (=coming) and not from the travelling person/thing towards his/her/its destination. Hence the interpretation has to be locative and not destinative.


----------



## Demiurg

bearded man said:


> May I add (without offense to anyone) that I find the explanations given by Germans concerning their 'static' constructions, as pure 'rationalizations'. Everyone considers their own language perfectly logical.... My opinion is that only the usage/Gebrauch is king in this matter.



I guess that's true - at least partially.  In such cases, I often generate a sentence (_... unter de*m* Tisch_), analyze the result (Dativ) and try to find an explanation (no movement involved) - or 'rationalization' as you call it.

But I don't think the German language is 'perfectly logical'.


----------



## bearded

Demiurg said:


> I guess that's true - at least partially.  In such cases, I often generate a sentence (_... unter de*m* Tisch_), analyze the result (Dativ) and try to find an explanation (no movement involved) - or 'rationalization' as you call it.
> But I don't think the German language is 'perfectly logical'.


I understand what you mean.  The point is that in another language (e.g. mine) I,too, can generate a sentence (_mi nascondo dietro la porta / arrivo al mercato_) and when we analyze the result those verbs are thought and strongly felt as destinative movement verbs, so here it would be  accusative - if cases existed in Italian - and we would find a perfectly rational explanation..


----------



## berndf

Yet _abscando sub ..._ also takes the ablative and not the accusative: _At me quispiam abscondat sub terra_ and not _At me quispiam abscondat sub terram_ (quote).


----------



## bearded

berndf said:


> Yet _abscando sub ..._ also takes the ablative and not the accusative: _At me quispiam abscondat sub terra_ and not _At me quispiam abscondat sub terram_ (quote).


 That quotation from the Palatine Anthology is a good point.  Apparently, Latin does not represent a rule for Italian any more.... In our grammar distinction between _complementi di stato in luogo _(location) and _complementi di moto a luogo _(direction), after 'nascondere/nascondersi' we have the latter ones.


----------



## berndf

An other question is if _mi nascondo sotto la terra _has a _complementi di stato in luogo _or a_ complementi di moto a luogo_. I would regard also in Italian a locative interpretation as possible.


----------



## bearded

@ berndf
You made some doubts arise in my mind, so I 've started  a thread in the 'Italian only' Forum (there are some real experts there) and will let you know the results in due course.  I hope that it won't be off-topic, since after all our argument now concerns the Italian and not the German language....


----------



## bearded

@ berndf
Following my post #20, it seems that there is no definite result of my enquiry in the Italian forum: opinions are divided, possibly with a slight majority in favour of the locative (non-directive) interpretation.  Concerning other languages possessing noun declinations, while in Latin the verb is locative like in German- as you say - ,in Hungarian and some Slavic languages it is directive... 
 I admit that you may be right.


----------



## TeruTeruMomiji

Thanks for the help. I think I need to check more examples and grammar books because I now don't understand ankommen + accusative .


----------



## cuore romano

TeruTeruMomiji said:


> Thanks for the help. I think I need to check more examples and grammar books _*because I *_now _*don't understand ankommen + accusative*_ .




You needn't check anything because it's *ankommen + dative*


----------



## berndf

cuore romano said:


> You needn't check anything because it's *ankommen + dative*


There is ankommen + accusative; but it is a different verb:
_Er ist mit der Hand *an die Vase* angekommen_.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

berndf said:


> There is ankommen + accusative; but it is a different verb:
> _Er ist mit der Hand *an die Vase* angekommen_.


Interesting. I'd say,

_Er ist mit der Hand an *der*_​ _Vase angekommen._


----------



## cuore romano

And I'd say

_Er ist mit der Hand *an die Vase* gekommen_.


----------

