# Italiener, die am meisten in Städten wohnen (Wortstellung)



## swindaff

Hallo!

Was ist richtig?

Normalerweise fahren die Italiener, die am meisten in Städte wohnen, zur Arbeit.
Normalerweise fahren die Italiener, die in Städte am meisten wohnen, zur Arbeit.


----------



## Kajjo

Al.ba said:


> Normalerweise fahren die Italiener, die am meisten in Städte wohnen, zur Arbeit.
> 
> Normalerweise fahren die Italiener, die in Städte am meisten wohnen, zur Arbeit.


Difficult to understand what you want to say. These sentence are not idiomatic and not comprehensible.

_Die meisten Italiener wohnen in Städten und fahren zur Arbeit.

Wenn es regnet, fahren die meisten Italiener mit dem Auto zur Arbeit.
_
"Am meisten" cannot be used as in your example.


----------



## swindaff

Italian people, who live especially in cities, go to work by car.



Kajjo said:


> Die meisten Italiener wohnen in Städten und fahren zur Arbeit.


This is what I wanted to say, but by using a relative clause  rather than two Hauptsätze.
Probably you would never say that in real life, I just wish to understand the grammar behind that.


----------



## Demiurg

Al.ba said:


> This is what I wanted to say, but by using a relative clause  rather than two Hauptsätze.


_Die Italiener, welche meistens in Städten wohnen, fahren mit dem Auto zur Arbeit._

Das Problem ist, dass im Deutschen syntaktisch nicht zwischen restriktiven und nicht-restriktiven Relativsätzen unterschieden wird. Bei einem nicht-restriktiven Relativsatz so wie hier sind zwei Hauptsätze manchmal die bessere Wahl.


----------



## Schlabberlatz

Man könnte auch ›überwiegend‹ sagen statt ›meistens‹.

Oder:
Die Italiener, von denen die meisten Stadtbewohner sind, fahren etc.


Al.ba said:


> the majority of


----------



## swindaff

Schlabberlatz said:


> Man könnte auch ›überwiegend‹ sagen statt ›meistens‹.
> 
> Oder:
> Die Italiener, von denen die meisten Stadtbewohner sind, fahren etc.


Probably this is the best option for me right now.



Demiurg said:


> Das Problem ist, dass im Deutschen syntaktisch nicht zwischen restriktiven und nicht-restriktiven Relativsätzen unterschieden wird. Bei einem nicht-restriktiven Relativsatz so wie hier sind zwei Hauptsätze manchmal die bessere Wahl.


Thanks Demiurg. The point is that I am now studying relative clauses and while practising them (speaking) that sentence came out, but I was unsure about the position of "am meisten" (superlativ) and the Lokalangabe, as this latter should always be at the very end. Sometimes when learning awkwards things may be said (and sometimes even read), as long as they can help understand how it works.


----------



## Frieder

Al.ba said:


> Italian people, who live especially in cities, go to work by car.


Mein erster Gedanke:

Italiener, besonders jene, die in Städten wohnen, benutzen für ihren Weg zur Arbeit ein Auto.


----------



## Kajjo

Frieder said:


> Italiener, besonders jene, die in Städten wohnen, benutzen für ihren Weg zur Arbeit ein Auto.


Yes, if there is the need to use relative clauses, this is the best so far.


Al.ba said:


> This is what I wanted to say, but by using a relative clause rather than two Hauptsätze.





Demiurg said:


> Das Problem ist, dass im Deutschen syntaktisch nicht zwischen restriktiven und nicht-restriktiven Relativsätzen unterschieden wird. Bei einem nicht-restriktiven Relativsatz so wie hier sind zwei Hauptsätze manchmal die bessere Wahl.


Alba, please not that two main clauses convey the meaning drastically better than the relative clause you intended to use. Since the German relative clause is not restrictive, it does simply not work in German.



Demiurg said:


> Die Italiener, welche meistens in Städten wohnen, fahren mit dem Auto zur Arbeit.


This means: _Most Italians live in cities. Most Italians use the car. 
_
It does not restrict the "going by car" to those Italians who live in cities. Please make certain you acccept this point!

In German two main clauses are very typical and idiomatic. You should try to get a feeling for when Germans use main clauses and in which cases we use relative clauses. It makes no sense to press translations into a relative clause, if the result is not idiomatic or even conveys the wrong content.


----------



## swindaff

@Kajjo I get what you are saying, I just wanted to understand the grammar behind it, as word order is always a bit complicated for me.
I didn't mean to restrict the "going by car" to Italians living in cities. 
Probably the choice of the sentence was wrong, I was unsure about word order between "am meisten" and "in Städten", particularly in Nebensätze.


----------



## Kajjo

Al.ba said:


> I was unsure about word order between "am meisten" and "in Städten", particularly in Nebensätze


Yes, I understand, but answering your question was difficult because "am meisten" does not really fit here (instead: _meistens, überwiegend_) and because the content of the sentence was unclear and the relative clause non-idiomatic. But I guess, we sorted all this out now.



Al.ba said:


> unsure about word order between "am meisten" and "in Städten"


Yes, I understand, but since "am meisten" does not fit here, it was difficult to answer that question. Use "am meisten" with verbs:

_Am meisten bin ich davon beeindruckt, dass... <what most impressed me>
Wovon hast du am meisten gegessen? <what did you eat most>_


----------



## Perseas

Kajjo said:


> Yes, I understand, but answering your question was difficult because "am meisten" does not really fit here (instead: _meistens, überwiegend_) and because the content of the sentence was unclear and the relative clause non-idiomatic.


The ambuiguity lies in my opinion in this:
1. _Italians drive to work._ (The fact that _most Italians live in cities_ is a nonessential or parenthetical information).
OR
2. _Most Italians live in cities and drive to work._


----------



## swindaff

Kajjo said:


> Yes, I understand, but since "am meisten" does not fit here, it was difficult to answer that question. Use "am meisten" with verbs:
> 
> _Am meisten bin ich davon beeindruckt, dass... <what most impressed me>
> Wovon hast du am meisten gegessen? <what did you eat most>_


Like an adverb?

@Perseas As I said 


Al.ba said:


> I didn't mean to restrict the "going by car" to Italians living in cities.


So the main clause is "most Italians drive to work"; the fact that they live in cities is nonessential, just additional information.


----------



## JClaudeK

Al.ba said:


> So the main clause is "most Italians drive to work"; the fact that they live in cities is nonessential, just additional information.


Wolltest Du also sagen:
"Die meisten Italiener fahren mit dem Auto zur Arbeit, (besonders die Stadtbewohner)." ?


----------



## Kajjo

Al.ba said:


> So the main clause is "most Italians drive to work"; the fact that they live in cities is nonessential, just additional information.


In German, you cannot easily add this information in a relative clause. This would be usually interpreted as restricted.



Frieder said:


> Italiener, besonders jene, die in Städten wohnen, benutzen für ihren Weg zur Arbeit ein Auto.


This is one possible solution to wrap up both informations in one sentence.



Kajjo said:


> Die meisten Italiener wohnen in Städten und fahren zur Arbeit.


This is still the most straight-forward way to include both facts in one idiomatic German sentence.


----------



## Schlabberlatz

Al.ba hat in #3 schon gesagt, wie es gemeint ist:


Al.ba said:


> the majority of


und das in #13 noch mal bestätigt:


Al.ba said:


> I didn't mean to restrict the "going by car" to Italians living in cities.


Er (sie?) möge mich korrigieren, wenn ich ihn falsch verstanden habe.

Ich erneuere meinen Vorschlag aus #9:


Schlabberlatz said:


> Die Italiener, von denen die meisten Stadtbewohner sind, fahren etc.


Oder vielleicht:
Italiener, von denen die meisten Stadtbewohner sind, fahren im allgemeinen mit dem Auto zur Arbeit.
?

Eigentlich müssten doch eher die Landbewohner mit dem Auto fahren. Die Städter haben (mehr) öffentliche Verkehrsmittel zur Verfügung. Oder ist in Italien alles anders?

Vielleicht doch besser zwei Sätze:
Italiener fahren im allgemeinen mit dem Auto zur Arbeit, und die meisten Italiener sind Stadtbewohner.
?


----------



## Gernot Back

Ich bezweifele, dass die meisten Italiener in Städten wohnen; also wohnen diese Italiener auch meistens (mehrheitlich) nicht in Städten, sondern eher auf dem Lande.


----------



## Perseas

Al.ba said:


> @Perseas As I said
> 
> 
> Al.ba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't mean to restrict the "going by car" to Italians living in cities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the main clause is "most Italians drive to work"; the fact that they live in cities is nonessential, just additional information.
Click to expand...

OK, Al.ba, sorry. I had just read these statements of yours and hence my confusion. Since it's clear now, I think Schlabberlatz' suggestion is the best indeed.




Al.ba said:


> Kajjo said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Die meisten Italiener wohnen in Städten und fahren zur Arbeit.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I wanted to say, but by using a relative clause  rather than two Hauptsätze.
Click to expand...





Al.ba said:


> Schlabberlatz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oder:
> Die Italiener, von denen die meisten Stadtbewohner sind, fahren etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Probably this is the best option for me right now.
Click to expand...


----------



## swindaff

@Schlabberlatz Du hast recht und ich denke noch, dass deine Vorschläge die besten für mich sind.


Schlabberlatz said:


> Ich erneuere meinen Vorschlag aus #9:
> Oder vielleicht:
> Italiener, von denen die meisten Stadtbewohner sind, fahren im allgemeinen mit dem Auto zur Arbeit.



@Schlabberlatz @Gernot Back Honestly, the statistic accuracy of the sentence was not really of great interest to me; it was just the first sentence that came to my mind. By the way, public trasport in Italy (and more precisely in my area) is quite bad, so most people prefer to drive to work, if possible.


I was re-reading @Kajjo 's replies. Please, correct me if I am wrong: in German you do not normally use relative clauses if it contains nonessential information, it is better to split the sentence in two sections.


----------



## berndf

Al.ba said:


> I was re-reading @Kajjo 's replies. Please, correct me if I am wrong: in German you do not normally use relative clauses if it contains nonessential information, it is better to split the sentence in two sections.


You can in general. What (I think) Kajjo tried to point out is that, contrary to (American) English, German has no general mechanism to distinguish between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses. It depends on the context which interpretation prevails. In some cases it is therefore better to stay clear of relative clauses, namely if the most likely interpretation would be the opposite of what you are trying to express.


----------



## Kajjo

berndf said:


> What (I think) Kajjo tried to point out is that, contrary to (American) English, German has no general mechanism to distinguish between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses. It depends on the context which interpretation prevails. In some cases it is therefore better to stay clear of relative clauses, namely if the most likely interpretation would be the opposite of what you are trying to express.


 Thanks! That's exactly what I mean.

Maybe read here about restrictive/non-restrictive clauses in English: Restrictive and Nonrestrictive Clauses—What’s the Difference?

Please note that native Germans usually have no concept of restrictiveness and the English distinction quite often is not intuitively felt. German relative clauses can be either and only the context clarifies what is meant. From a German point of view, the restrictiveness is quite often undefined and unimportant. Again, we don't think and feel this concept and if _semantical _restrictiveness occurs than just by context and common sense, but not as _grammatical _feature in itself.

Back to the original question: Your relative clause was obviously not clear and can be safely replaced by two main clauses.


----------



## elroy

berndf said:


> (American) English


 It’s the same in British English, isn’t it?


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> It’s the same in British English, isn’t it?


Die Unterscheidung gibt es im Britischen Englisch natürlich auch, aber ein bisschen weniger strikt. In beiden Varietäten kann _that_ nur restriktiv verwandt werden. _Which_ kann im BrE aber sowohl restriktiv als auch nicht-restriktiv gebraucht werden. Zur Unterscheidung bleibt dann nur das Komma.


----------



## swindaff

Thank you everyone!


----------



## elroy

berndf said:


> _Which_ kann im BrE aber sowohl restriktiv als auch nicht-restriktiv gebraucht werden.


 Same in American English, but non-restrictive “which” is uncommon.


berndf said:


> Zur Unterscheidung bleibt dann nur das Komma.


 The comma is what it’s all about — in both varieties of English.  Regardless of what relatives are used, comma use obligatorily covaries with restrictiveness.


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> Same in American English, but non-restrictive “which” is uncommon


Well, "uncommon" to the point that I experienced Americans objecting to my restrictive usage of _which_.


----------



## elroy

I don’t see your point.  If something is uncommon, of course it’s going to be objected to in many cases.


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> I don’t see your point.  If something is uncommon, of course it’s going to be objected to in many cases.


That would not happen in Britain. The discouragement of this use, which you find in American style guides, does not occur in Britain.


----------



## elroy

I didn’t say it did.   I said it was used in US English but that it was uncommon, meaning that American English and British English aren’t as different from each other in this regard as you initially made it sound.  You didn’t want to accept this, so you put my “uncommon” in scare quotes and told me it’s been objected to by Americans, which doesn’t refute what I said but in fact supports it. 

In any case, I don’t think the frequency of different relatives in different contexts is actually relevant: as I said, *both* varieties of English *consistently* make the distinction through comma usage, and that’s what matters.


----------



## berndf

Do we really have split hairs that fine?

I have acknowledged from the beginning that both varieties have the conceptual distinction but I said (and am still saying) there is an actual usage difference that makes the distinction a bit more clear-cut and transparent in AmE than in BrE. You can't see the comma in spoken language. That was the motivation of my "(American)" in the post you replied to.


----------



## Perseas

On a side note, although the distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses exists also in Greek, only few people (philologists maybe?) are aware of this. Also, the correct use of comma is anyway a "thorn in the flesh" (I suppose also in other languages). Therefore, in order to communicate the correct meaning and to avoid missunderstandings, you have to be very careful. Even if you as the sender know the distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses, you have to make sure that also the receiver knows this.


----------



## Kajjo

Another note to restrictive content in German. We use different constructions and words to clearly mark restrictions, e.g.:

_Solche X, die...
Diejenigen X, die...
Alle/Viele/Nur X, die..._


----------

