# die Butter -- sie



## Magg

Hi,

considering this dialogue, which is the right option in the second sentence?

-Die Butter is heute im Angebot.
-Was kosted *es/das*?

Danke!
Magg


----------



## ITA

Magg said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> considering this dialogue, which is the right option in the second sentence?
> 
> -Die Butter is heute im Angebot.
> -Was kosted *es/das*?
> 
> Danke!
> Magg



Hallo Magg,
-Die Butter is heute im Angebot.
-Was kostet sie?
-Sie kostet 4 euros.
Desde Bs As ITA.
Esperemos  a ver que dicen los expertos en alemán .


----------



## Whodunit

ITA said:
			
		

> Hallo Magg,
> -Die Butter is heute im Angebot.
> -Was kostet sie?
> -Sie kostet 4 euros.
> Desde Bs As ITA.
> Esperemos  a ver que dicen los expertos en alemán .



Los expertos en alemán - aquí está uno - dicen que tu sugerencia está correcta. Okay, sorrey for my rude Spanish, but I tried it. I would only correct one small detail. In German, you actually say the plural word for "Euro" with a number in front of is also "Euro", unlike in Spanish, i.e.
- Was kostet sie?
- Sie kostet 4 Euro.

But on the other  hand, your German is very good.


----------



## mnzrob

Could you also say, Die Butter ist im Angebot.

Was kostet die?
Die kostet...
I know it isn't as correct as saying SIE, and it doesn't really sound right in the questions above, but "Die kostet..." sounds correct.
Could one use DIE as well?
Thx.


----------



## Artrella

mnzrob said:
			
		

> Could you also say, Die Butter ist im Angebot.
> 
> Was kostet die?
> Die kostet...
> I know it isn't as correct as saying SIE, and it doesn't really sound right in the questions above, but "Die kostet..." sounds correct.
> Could one use DIE as well?
> Thx.




I don't think so...Who???


----------



## Whodunit

Artrella said:
			
		

> I don't think so...Who???



Actually, it's grammatically correct. The word "die" is also an insulting word for "sie", i.e. if this butter you see in the shelves above and it looks mildewy or rotten, you can unfavorably say "Was kostet *die (denn)*?

I hope the question is answered, because I don't want to go further into this topic since it isn't the standard language, you (Artrella) want to learn. It's the same as writing the last sentence:

..., 'coz I don't wanna go further int'is topic 'coz 'tis ain't tha standard language ye (Art) wanna learn.


----------



## ITA

whodunit said:
			
		

> Los expertos en alemán - aquí está uno - dicen que tu sugerencia está correcta. Okay, sorrey for my rude Spanish, but I tried it. I would only correct one small detail. In German, you actually say the plural word for "Euro" with a number in front of is also "Euro", unlike in Spanish, i.e.
> - Was kostet sie?
> - Sie kostet 4 Euro.
> 
> But on the other  hand, your German is very good.



Viele Danke Freunde   , dein spanisch auch ist gut.  .
Desde Bs As ITA.


----------



## Magg

Thanks a lot.

Sorry for my lack of knowledge on the subject, but why 'die butter' takes the third person singular personal pronoun 'sie'?. It isn't a female person, is it?

If the same sentence would have been with 'der Käse' or 'das Mehl', which would have been the word to use?

Thanks again and be patient with my questions.

Magg


----------



## Whodunit

Magg said:
			
		

> Thanks a lot.
> 
> Sorry for my lack of knowledge on the subject, but why 'die butter' takes the third person singular personal pronoun 'sie'?. It isn't a female person, is it?
> 
> If the same sentence would have been with 'der Käse' or 'das Mehl', which would have been the word to use?
> 
> Thanks again and be patient with my questions.
> 
> Magg



That's the same thing as in Spanish:

"la mantequilla" takes the 3rd singular and becomes "la" as an object.
"el queso" also takes the 3rd singular and becomes "lo" as an object.
"la harina" does the same as "la mantequilla".

Am I correct? Spanish is not my favorite topic but I try to write it.

And now the same in German:

"die Butter" takes 3rd sg. and becomes "sie" as an object.
"der Käse" takes 3rd sg. too and becomes "er" as an object.
"das Mehl" also takes 3rd and becomes "es" as an object.

Examples:

Wie viel kostet die Butter?
Wie viel kostet sie?

Wie viel kostet der Käse?
Wie viel kostet er?

Wie viel kostet das Mehl?
Wie viel kostet es?


----------



## Artrella

whodunit said:
			
		

> Actually, it's grammatically correct. The word "die" is also an insulting word for "sie", i.e. if this butter you see on the shelves above and it looks mildewy or rotten, you can unfavorably say "Was kostet *die (denn)*?
> 
> I hope the question is answered, because I don't want to go further into this topic since it isn't the standard language, you (Artrella) want to learn. It's the same as writing the last sentence:
> 
> ..., 'coz I don't wanna go further int'is topic 'coz 'tis ain't tha standard language ye (Art) wanna learn.




AAAhhhh!!!  Who!! Ich verstehe nicht!! If you say "die" is like offensive in this case, right?  So you have to use "sie" which is the correct pronoun for "die Buter"... Am I right or should I go to look for my neurone again??


----------



## gaer

Artrella said:
			
		

> AAAhhhh!!! Who!! Ich verstehe nicht!! If you say "die" is like offensive in this case, right? So you have to use "sie" which is the correct pronoun for "die Buter"... Am I right or should I go to look for my neurone again??


 
Let me take a stab at this for you.

Yes, "sie" refers to the butter.

Remember Who's explanation:

Wie viel kostet die Butter?
Wie viel kostet sie?

Answer: Sie kostet…

Wie viel kostet die Butter?
Wie viel kostet die?

The use of "die" in place of the normal "sie" is for EMPHASIS. Often, although I don't believe it is always so, it expresses annoyance.

I can't construct such sentences, but I've seen many cases in which "der" replaces "er", for example, for emphasize. It has a bit of the meaning, in English, of writing "he" in italics.

Who or Ralf can write many such sentences.

Was kostet das? What does that cost? (General question.)
Was kostet es? What does it cost? (General question.)

Wieviel kostet das? How much does that cost? (General question.)
Wieviel kostet es? How much does it cost? (General question.)

(These are the forms I'm used to seeing…)

But if you want to be more specific, you can replace "es" or "das" with "sie/er". You would probably be making a very specific question. As for frequency, I think you will see this specific way of phrasing the question less frequently.

Does that help? I really should not be explaining German grammar. 

Gaer


----------



## Magg

whodunit said:
			
		

> That's the same thing as in Spanish:
> 
> "la mantequilla" takes the 3rd singular and becomes "la" as an object.
> "el queso" also takes the 3rd singular and becomes "lo" as an object.
> "la harina" does the same as "la mantequilla".
> 
> Am I correct? Spanish is not my favorite topic but I try to write it.
> 
> And now the same in German:
> 
> "die Butter" takes 3rd sg. and becomes "sie" as an object.
> "der Käse" takes 3rd sg. too and becomes "er" as an object.
> "das Mehl" also takes 3rd and becomes "es" as an object.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> Wie viel kostet die Butter?
> Wie viel kostet sie?
> 
> Wie viel kostet der Käse?
> Wie viel kostet er?
> 
> Wie viel kostet das Mehl?
> Wie viel kostet es?



Whodunit,

Thanks for your easy and comprehensible explanations. They were really useful to me. Now I understand it.

Cheers,

Magg


----------



## Artrella

gaer said:
			
		

> Let me take a stab at this for you.
> 
> Yes, "sie" refers to the butter.
> 
> Remember Who's explanation:
> 
> Wie viel kostet die Butter?
> Wie viel kostet sie?
> 
> Answer: Sie kostet…
> 
> Wie viel kostet die Butter?
> Wie viel kostet die?
> 
> The use of "die" in place of the normal "sie" is for EMPHASIS. Often, although I don't believe it is always so, it expresses annoyance.
> 
> I can't construct such sentences, but I've seen many cases in which "der" replaces "er", for example, for emphasize. It has a bit of the meaning, in English, of writing "he" in italics.
> 
> Who or Ralf can write many such sentences.
> 
> Was kostet das? What does that cost? (General question.)
> Was kostet es? What does it cost? (General question.)
> 
> Wieviel kostet das? How much does that cost? (General question.)
> Wieviel kostet es? How much does it cost? (General question.)
> 
> (These are the forms I'm used to seeing…)
> 
> But if you want to be more specific, you can replace "es" or "das" with "sie/er". You would probably be making a very specific question. As for frequency, I think you will see this specific way of phrasing the question less frequently.
> 
> Does that help? I really should not be explaining German grammar.
> 
> Gaer




Guten Morgen Gaer! Danke vielmals! Deine Erklärung ist kristallklar!!
Eine Frage... ist es "Wieviel" oder "Wie viel" ?


----------



## ITA

Leute,Bitte!!! alguna traducción al español de estos mensajes!!!!!.  
Danke  Ita .


----------



## Whodunit

ITA said:
			
		

> Leute,Bitte!!! alguna traducción al español de estos mensajes!!!!!.
> Danke  Ita .



A lo mejor Artrella puede les ellos traducir. Okay, this Spanish is very bad.


----------



## Whodunit

Artrella said:
			
		

> Guten Morgen Gaer! Danke vielmals! Deine Erklärung ist kristallklar!!
> Eine Frage... ist es "Wieviel" oder "Wie viel" ?



Hum ..., after the spelling reform it's changed to "wie viel(e)", before it was "wieviel(e)" - don't ask me the rule - but the word "wievielmal" is spelled as one word. Difficult German   , poor German learners.


----------



## Artrella

whodunit said:
			
		

> A lo mejor Artrella puede les ellos traducir. Okay, this Spanish is very bad.




Who, look >>>  *A lo mejor Artrella los puede traducir / A lo mejor Artrella puede traducirlos.*

As regards "wie viel" >> this is the way meine Lehrerin has taught us.

Thx!


----------



## Artrella

whodunit said:
			
		

> Hum ..., after the spelling reform it's changed to "wie viel(e)", before it was "wieviel(e)" - don't ask me the rule - but the word "wievielmal" is spelled as one word. Difficult German   , poor German learners.




*Para ITA*


Hum... después de la reforma ortográfica esto ha cambiado a "wie viel(e)", antes era "wieviel(e)" -no me preguntes la regla- pero la palabra "wievielmal" se escribe toda junta como una sóla palabra".  Alemán difícil   , pobres los estudiantes de alemán.


----------



## Whodunit

Artrella said:
			
		

> Who, look >>>  *A lo mejor Artrella los puede traducir / A lo mejor Artrella puede traducirlos.*
> 
> As regards "wie viel" >> this is the way meine Lehrerin has taught us.
> 
> Thx!



Oh, I thought of French where I the object pronoun is postposition when using modal verbs such as "poder (pouvoir)", "querer (vouloir)", and in the French _futur simple_: "aller (ir)", e.g.

Ich kann es nicht übersetzen.
Je ne peux pas le tradiure.
No lo puedo traducir.

Willst du sie  nicht sehen?
Tu ne veux pas la  voir?
¿No la  quieres ver? (I'm not sure if it is right)

Wir werden sie  treffen.
Nous les  allons rencontrer.
Ellos  encontraremos.


----------



## Artrella

gaer said:
			
		

> Let me take a stab at this for you. / Dejame intentarlo
> Yes, "sie" refers to the butter. / sí, "sie" se refiere a la manteca
> 
> Remember Who's explanation: / Acordate de la explicación de Who
> Wie viel kostet die Butter?
> Wie viel kostet sie?
> 
> Answer: Sie kostet…
> 
> Wie viel kostet die Butter?
> Wie viel kostet die?
> 
> The use of "die" in place of the normal "sie" is for EMPHASIS. Often, although I don't believe it is always so, it expresses annoyance./ El uso de "die" en lugar del formal "sie" es para darle énfasis.  Muy a menudo, y aunque yo no lo creo tan así siempre, expresa molestia, enfado, mala onda.
> 
> I can't construct such sentences, but I've seen many cases in which "der" replaces "er", for example, for emphasize. It has a bit of the meaning, in English, of writing "he" in italics. /No puedo hacer tales oraciones, pero he visto  muchos casos en los cuales "der" reemplaza  a "er" por ejemplo, para enfatizar.  Se parece un poco a cuando en inglés se escribe "he" en itálica.
> 
> Who or Ralf can write many such sentences / Who y Ralf pueden escribir muchas oraciones de este tipo  Was kostet das? What does that cost? (General question.)
> Was kostet es? What does it cost? (General question.)
> 
> Wieviel kostet das? How much does that cost? (General question.)/ Cuánto cuesta eso?Wieviel kostet es?
> 
> How much does it cost? (General question.)/ Cuánto cuesta esto (ojo! para cosas, en castellano esto no existe)
> 
> 
> (These are the forms I'm used to seeing…)/ éstas son las formas que yo estoy acostumbrado a ver
> 
> But if you want to be more specific, you can replace "es" or "das" with "sie/er". You would probably be making a very specific question. As for frequency, I think you will see this specific way of phrasing the question less frequently. / Pero si querés ser más específico, podés reemplazar "es" o "das" por "sie/er".  Probablemente estarás haciendo una pregunta muy específica.
> En cuanto a la frecuencia, creo que verás esta forma particular de hacer una pregunta, no tan  frecuentemente.
> 
> Does that help? I really should not be explaining German grammar.  / Ayuda esto? Realmente yo no tendría que estar explicando gramática alemana.
> Gaer





*Para ITA*  Saludos, Art


----------



## Artrella

whodunit said:
			
		

> Oh, I thought of French where I the object pronoun is postposition when using modal verbs such as "poder (pouvoir)", "querer (vouloir)", and in the French _futur simple_: "aller (ir)", e.g.
> 
> Ich kann es nicht übersetzen.
> Je ne peux pas le tradiure.
> No lo puedo traducir.   but here you can also say "no puedo traducirlo"
> 
> Willst du sie  nicht sehen?
> Tu ne veux pas la  voir?
> ¿No la  quieres ver? (I'm not sure if it is right)   or "¿No quieres verla?"
> 
> Wir werden sie  treffen.
> Nous les  allons rencontrer.
> Ellos  encontraremos.


" Nos encontraremos con ellos"

In this last case the French translation into Spanish is >> "Nosotros los iremos a encontrar" the same as in German, and it is good Spanis.  You can also say "Nosotros iremos a encontrarlos" but your translation from French into Spanish was not correct.  If you want to use the word "ellos" you must use the preposition "con" (avec-mit) >>> "Nosotros nos encontraremos con ellos"

I hope this is clear...Do you see? Not only German is difficult to learn but also Spanish...  

Tschüss!


----------



## ITA

Arti:DANKE FREUNDIN!!!!
Siempre al rescate de mi mal inglés,pero vos sabés bien esto está por solucionarse rápido paciencia!!


----------



## gaer

Artrella said:
			
		

> Guten Morgen Gaer! Danke vielmals! Deine Erklärung ist kristallklar!!
> Eine Frage... ist es "Wieviel" oder "Wie viel" ?


Grundform: *wieviel* 
Form(en): wieviel, wieviele, wievielen, wievieles, wievieler 
*alte Rechtschreibung von: wie viel*

In other words, I goofed again, using the old way.  And Who, who knows these newer rules very well, is right again. 

Here's an excellent site that USUALLY tells you about such things:

http://wortschatz.uni-leipzig.de/

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

Artrella said:
			
		

> " Nos encontraremos con ellos"
> 
> In this last case the French translation into Spanish is >> "Nosotros los iremos a encontrar" the same as in German, and it is good Spanis.  You can also say "Nosotros iremos a encontrarlos" but your translation from French into Spanish was not correct.  If you want to use the word "ellos" you must use the preposition "con" (avec-mit) >>> "Nosotros nos encontraremos con ellos"
> 
> I hope this is clear...Do you see? Not only German is difficult to learn but also Spanish...
> 
> Tschüss!



Gracias, comprendidole. Can I say it like this or better: Le comprendido?

I found this, but I think it has to be "Le he comprendado", oh Spanish...


----------



## ITA

whodunit said:
			
		

> Gracias, comprendidole. Can I say it like this or better: Le comprendido?
> 
> I found this, but I think it has to be ",Le he comprendado oh ]Spanish...  [/QUOTE
> 
> "Le he comprendado "  "
> "Lo he comprendido"
> 
> Le comprendido?
> 
> "Lo comprendí" oder "lo he entendido"
> Espero haber comprendido lo que quieres decir,Ita.


----------



## Whodunit

ITA said:
			
		

> whodunit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracias, comprendidole. Can I say it like this or better: Le comprendido?
> 
> I found this, but I think it has to be ",Le he comprendado oh ]Spanish...  [/QUOTE
> 
> "Le he comprendado "  "
> "Lo he comprendido"
> 
> Le comprendido?
> 
> "Lo comprendí" oder "lo he entendido"
> Espero haber comprendido lo que quieres decir,Ita.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ¡Ay, lo he confundido con francés!
Click to expand...


----------



## Artrella

whodunit said:
			
		

> Gracias, comprendidole. Can I say it like this or better: Le comprendido?
> 
> I found this, but I think it has to be "Le he comprendado", oh Spanish...




Schau (= look??) Who!

Gracias *lo he comprendido* (= Ich habe "it" (?) verstanden )

Comprendado = wrong!!  >>> comprendido   

Le comprendido   *Le * he comprendido (I have understood you/him/her) >> ("le" indirect object >>> Le he comprendido* a* usted/a él/a ella)

Spanish!!!    GErman!!!


----------



## ITA

whodunit said:
			
		

> ITA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ¡Ay, lo he confundido con francés!
> 
> 
> 
> Kein Problem!! wir sind um helfen zu
> Also, ist "un helfen zu oder "für helfen"?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


----------



## Ralf

ITA said:
			
		

> whodunit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kein Problem!! wir sind um helfen zu
> Also, ist "u*m* helfen zu oder "für helfen"?  .
> 
> 
> 
> It has to be:
> "Wir sind hier, um zu helfen." or
> "Wir sind da, um zu helfen." or
> "Wir sind zum Helfen hier."
> 
> Ralf
Click to expand...


----------



## Whodunit

Artrella said:
			
		

> Schau Who   !
> 
> Gracias *lo he comprendido* (= Ich habe "it" (?) verstanden )
> 
> Comprendado = wrong!!  >>> comprendido
> 
> Le comprendido   *Le * he comprendido (I have understood you/him/her) >> ("le" indirect object >>> Le he comprendido* a* usted/a él/a ella)
> 
> Spanish!!!    GErman!!!



This is the site, I very often use to look up the conjugation. And it is "yo he comprendado" there. Correct??? Wrong???     

In German you can say your sentences as following:
Ich habe *ihn* (him)/*sie* (her)/*es* (it) verstanden.
Unlike in French and Spanish, you have to use the neuter form that doesn't exist in French and your language. There you always have to use the male form if indicating a thing that isn't actually a thing:

Gracias, *lo* he comprendido. You can't indicate 'lo' as a thing, it's an object though.

Danke, ich habe *es* verstanden. The same goes for German.


----------



## Artrella

whodunit said:
			
		

> This is the site, I very often use to look up the conjugation. And it is "yo he comprendado" there. Correct??? Wrong???
> 
> In German you can say your sentences as following:
> Ich habe *ihn* (him)/*sie* (her)/*es* (it) verstanden.
> Unlike in French and Spanish, you have to use the neuter form that doesn't exist in French and your language. There you always have to use the male form if indicating a thing that isn't actually a thing:
> 
> Gracias, *lo* he comprendido. You can't indicate 'lo' as a thing, it's an object though.
> 
> Danke, ich habe *es* verstanden. The same goes for German.




Who, that site is *WRONG*  *Your printer friendly Spanish verb conjugation* >>>>>>>  let me tell you somenthing: it is not friendly for you. If you want the conjugations you have to go to the RAE.  Then via PM I will give you some Spanish verbs conjugators.  But please burn that one you have got there!!!  

LO >> direct object.

Tschüss,


----------



## Whodunit

Artrella said:
			
		

> Who, that site is *WRONG*  *Your printer friendly Spanish verb conjugation* >>>>>>>  let me tell you somenthing: it is not friendly for you. If you want the conjugations you have to go to the RAE.  Then via PM I will give you some Spanish verbs conjugators.  But please burn that one you have got there!!!
> 
> LO >> direct object.
> 
> Tschüss,



Till now, I thought it was serious. And I shall BURN it? FORGET? OBLITERATE OUT OF MY MIND??? Okay, please send me good conjugators via PM, and in exchange, I'll erase this site for myself.


----------



## ITA

Ralf said:
			
		

> ITA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has to be:
> "Wir sind hier, um zu helfen." or
> "Wir sind da, um zu helfen." or
> "Wir sind zum Helfen hier."
> 
> Ralf
> 
> 
> 
> Danke Freundi
Click to expand...


----------



## gaer

whodunit said:
			
		

> This is the site, I very often use to look up the conjugation. And it is "yo he comprendado" there. Correct??? Wrong???
> 
> In German you can say your sentences as following:
> Ich habe *ihn* (him)/*sie* (her)/*es* (it) verstanden.
> Unlike in French and Spanish, you have to use the neuter form that doesn't exist in French and your language. There you always have to use the male form if indicating a thing that isn't actually a thing:
> 
> Gracias, *lo* he comprendido. You can't indicate 'lo' as a thing, it's an object though.
> 
> Danke, ich habe *es* verstanden. The same goes for German.


Careful! "Garbage in, garbage out"

Try putting in compred*er*

You have to be really careful on this site. You don't always get a warning when you enter a wrong verb! 

http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/cache/1.comprender.html

Gaer


----------



## gaer

Artrella said:
			
		

> Who, that site is *WRONG*  *Your printer friendly Spanish verb conjugation* >>>>>>> let me tell you somenthing: it is not friendly for you. If you want the conjugations you have to go to the RAE. Then via PM I will give you some Spanish verbs conjugators. But please burn that one you have got there!!!
> 
> LO >> direct object.
> 
> Tschüss,


Actually USUALLY that site is very helpful, but you do have to be careful. 

Here is an example of what can go wrong:

http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/go.asp?T1=should&D1=20&H1=120&imageField.x=5&imageField.y=12

The problem is that no one has filtered out "should" as being PART of another verb.

In this case you get a warning.

http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/go.asp?T1=comprendar&D1=1&H1=101&imageField.x=11&imageField.y=6

Again, you get a warning. I never used the "printer friendly" version.

There are bugs, but I assure this site can be very useful. However, it IS a "work in progress".

Who, try it out for French. Choose some verbs you know. I think there are some problems with commands there, also in Spanish, I think…

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> Actually USUALLY that site is very helpful, but you do have to be careful.
> 
> Here is an example of what can go wrong:
> 
> http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/go.asp?T1=should&D1=20&H1=120&imageField.x=5&imageField.y=12
> 
> The problem is that no one has filtered out "should" as being PART of another verb.
> 
> In this case you get a warning.
> 
> http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/go.asp?T1=comprendar&D1=1&H1=101&imageField.x=11&imageField.y=6
> 
> Again, you get a warning. I never used the "printer friendly" version.
> 
> There are bugs, but I assure this site can be very useful. However, it IS a "work in progress".
> 
> Who, try it out for French. Choose some verbs you know. I think there are some problems with commands there, also in Spanish, I think…
> 
> Gaer



Thanks for justifying this site.


----------



## gaer

whodunit said:
			
		

> Thanks for justifying this site.


I think we all need to be on guard. If you have time, check out some "thorny" German verbs.

My old "501 German verbs" remains very reliable, but it has the old spellings. I just don't have the money to replace it. 

I also have a verb book for Spanish and French, so if I have any doubts about the accuracy of something online, I have those books to double-check, and I also don't hesitate a second to ask native speakers. 

Gaer


----------



## Artrella

gaer said:
			
		

> Actually USUALLY that site is very helpful, but you do have to be careful.
> 
> Here is an example of what can go wrong:
> 
> http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/go.asp?T1=should&D1=20&H1=120&imageField.x=5&imageField.y=12
> 
> The problem is that no one has filtered out "should" as being PART of another verb.
> 
> In this case you get a warning.
> 
> http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/go.asp?T1=comprendar&D1=1&H1=101&imageField.x=11&imageField.y=6
> 
> Again, you get a warning. I never used the "printer friendly" version.
> 
> There are bugs, but I assure this site can be very useful. However, it IS a "work in progress".
> 
> Who, try it out for French. Choose some verbs you know. I think there are some problems with commands there, also in Spanish, I think…
> 
> Gaer





Thank you Gaer for the information about that site!  I really didn't know about it ( I don't use it...) but yes that about "have shoulded" HA HA HA !!!

Tschüss!!


----------



## gaer

Artrella said:
			
		

> Thank you Gaer for the information about that site! I really didn't know about it ( I don't use it...) but yes that about "have shoulded" HA HA HA !!!
> 
> Tschüss!!


But notice it tells you that "should" is not in the database. 

Here's what you REALLY have to watch out for:

http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/cache/20.shall.html

Everything except present and past should be grayed-out. It also has "Let's shall", which also should not be there.

I have no idea what "conjunctive" means. Sounds like some kind of disease. 

And at the bottom where verbs like "shall" are listed, "can", "will" and "may" are missing. All these simple modal verbs are shown in forms that don't exist, but present and past tense are correct. That's why I say, you have to be careful. You might check out some verbs in Spanish and find out what kind of glitches are there. 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> But notice it tells you that "should" is not in the database.
> 
> Here's what you REALLY have to watch out for:
> 
> http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/cache/20.shall.html
> 
> Everything except present and past should be grayed-out. It also has "Let's shall", which also should not be there.
> 
> I have no idea what "conjunctive" means. Sounds like some kind of disease.
> 
> And at the bottom where verbs like "shall" are listed, "can", "will" and "may" are missing. All these simple modal verbs are shown in forms that don't exist, but present and past tense are correct. That's why I say, you have to be careful. You might check out some verbs in Spanish and find out what kind of glitches are there.
> 
> Gaer



I have to admit that I really like these strange gerunds:
coulding, shoulding, mighting, maying, beening, wering     

And just for sake of laughing, please enter 'cannot' and look at these forms. The same goes for any noun, although it's actually not in the list, as the warning says.

"conjunctive" is the same as "subjunctive"    My dictionary also knows the word 'conjunctive': Translation: Konjunktiv; synomym: subjunctive.


----------



## gaer

whodunit said:
			
		

> I have to admit that I really like these strange gerunds:
> coulding, shoulding, mighting, maying, beening, wering
> 
> And just for sake of laughing, please enter 'cannot' and look at these forms. The same goes for any noun, although it's actually not in the list, as the warning says.
> 
> "conjunctive" is the same as "subjunctive"  My dictionary also knows the word 'conjunctive': Translation: Konjunktiv; synomym: subjunctive.


The problem with idiot verb conjugations seems to be a programming problem. Some things have been fixed since I first started using the site. I will tell you one thing: in French it's very useful combined with the dictionary site here, because if you type in a conjugated verb, usually the dictionary will return the infinitive. Then, when I get mixed up, I can use Verbix by pasting in the correct verb and getting the conjugations.

Nevertheles, "conjunctive" is not the right word. We have conditional and subjunctive. They are not the same. Now, about weird results…

It is absolutely necessary to know the proper infinitive to use Verbix. Go to the German version and type in mussen! You're "gonna" laugh!

A more serious problem is that if you type in müssen, the results do not reflect the spelling changes.

Even more curious (http://wortschatz.uni-leipzig.de/):

Grundform: müssen
neue Rechtschreibung von: müßen
Form(en): müssen, muß, muss, müsse, mußte, müßten, musste, mußten, müßte, müssten, mussten, müsste, mußt, müßt, musst, müsst, müßen, müsset, müsssen, müsstest, gemusst, musstest, müssest, müsstet, musstet, müssenden, müssende, müssend, zumüssen, müssender, jemusst

Is it any wonder those of us who don't live in German and don't have the latest, most reliable sources get confused? 

This site did not bother to to divide up forms under old and new rules!

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> The problem with idiot verb conjugations seems to be a programming problem. Some things have been fixed since I first started using the site. I will tell you one thing: in French it's very useful combined with the dictionary site here, because if you type in a conjugated verb, usually the dictionary will return the infinitive. Then, when I get mixed up, I can use Verbix by pasting in the correct verb and getting the conjugations.
> 
> Nevertheles, "conjunctive" is not the right word. We have conditional and subjunctive. They are not the same. Now, about weird results…
> 
> It is absolutely necessary to know the proper infinitive to use Verbix. Go to the German version and type in mussen! You're "gonna" laugh! *I DID!*
> 
> A more serious problem is that if you type in müssen, the results do not reflect the spelling changes.
> 
> Even more curious (http://wortschatz.uni-leipzig.de/):
> 
> Grundform: müssen
> neue Rechtschreibung von: müßen
> Form(en): müssen, muß, muss, müsse, mußte, müßten, musste, mußten, müßte, müssten, mussten, müsste, mußt, müßt, musst, müsst, müßen, müsset, müsssen, müsstest, gemusst, musstest, müssest, müsstet, musstet, müssenden, müssende, müssend, zumüssen, müssender, jemusst
> 
> Is it any wonder those of us who don't live in German*y* and don't have the latest, most reliable sources get confused?
> 
> This site did not bother *you* to divide up forms under old and new rules!
> 
> Gaer



I tried the German word 'sollen' and it's the same this as I have could --> ich habe gesollt. I really never heard such an expression.

And your above-mentioned words are actually grammatically correct, but is has to read *M*üssender and *g*emusst. Uni-Leipzig is a good resource for looking up new words, but not a good conjugator.


----------



## gaer

whodunit said:
			
		

> I tried the German word 'sollen' and it's the same this as I have could --> ich habe gesollt. I really never heard such an expression.
> 
> And your above-mentioned words are actually grammatically correct, but is has to read *M*üssender and *g*emusst. Uni-Leipzig is a good resource for looking up new words, but not a good conjugator.


 
You caught an error, but it should be:

This site did not bother to divide up forms under old and new rules!

No "you". I double-typed a word. I also wondered about "jemusst", but if you "Google it", you'll get some hits. So I wondered if this might be dialect. It's also possible that many people simply mistyped it!

As for the site being no good for conjugation, I absoutely agree. 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> You caught an error, but it should be:
> 
> This site did not bother to divide up forms under old and new rules!
> 
> No "you". I double-typed a word. I also wondered about "jemusst", but if you "Google it", you'll get some hits. So I wondered if this might be dialect. It's also possible that many people simply mistyped it!
> 
> As for the site being no good for conjugation, I absoutely agree.
> 
> Gaer



Well, "jemusst" is definitely a dialect. In the south you can hear "g'musst", in the north "j'musst (I don't know for sure)", and in here where Ralf and I live, you will sometimes hear "jemusst", but it's mainly spoken in Berlin like this.


----------



## gaer

whodunit said:
			
		

> Well, "jemusst" is definitely a dialect. In the south you can hear "g'musst", in the north "j'musst (I don't know for sure)", and in here where Ralf and I live, you will sometimes hear "jemusst", but it's mainly spoken in Berlin like this.


Strange that such spoken forms would be included on the site!

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> Strange that such spoken forms would be included on the site!
> 
> Gaer



Actually, it's forbidden — or better: impolite — to write such forms in a dictionary, but I would even be glad myself if I could find an English dictionary with all the dialect forms on the world.


----------



## gaer

whodunit said:
			
		

> Actually, it's forbidden — or better: impolite — to write such forms in a dictionary, but I would even be glad myself if I could find an English dictionary with all the dialect forms of the world.


(Or in the world, depending on your meaning.)

There has been a gradual change over the last hundred years or so. It used to be impossible to find things that we "should not say". It's ironic that you're supposed to learn what NOT to say by using books that don't TELL you about it. 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> (Or in the world, depending on your meaning.)
> 
> There has been a gradual change over the last hundred years or so. It used to be impossible to find things that we "should not say". It's ironic that you're supposed to learn what NOT to say by using books that don't TELL you about it.
> 
> Gaer



I think, even if you're the best native English speaker in the world, you won't know all of these words, dialects, sayings, etc. And nor a learner, and nor an author of a dictionary.


----------



## gaer

whodunit said:
			
		

> I think, even if you're the best native English speaker in the world, you won't know all of these words, dialects, sayings, etc. And nor a learner, and nor an author of a dictionary.


No argument from me. Just one look at the Webster Unabridged Dictionary is enough to scare you. And I don't always understand words in books I read. If they are strange and don't matter to the story, I just don't have TIME to look them all up and continue looking up important words in German, French and Spanish—and sometimes Japanese.


----------



## comeauch

Quick question on the topic of "es oder das"...

If, out of context I say the following: "It's a sunny day and I didn't put any sunscreen, it might cause me a sunburn!"

I'm pretty sure one would translate roughly as this: "Es ist ein sonniger Tag und ich trage kein Sonnencreme, es könnte mir einen Sonnenbrand bekommen!" (Okay, I'm really not sure that "bekommen" is the correct verb for this... sorry ^^)


But... I often have a tendency to substitute the "es"s for "das"s... like this: "_Das_ ist ein sonniger Tag und ich trage kein Sonnencreme, _das _könnte mir einen Sonnenbrand bekommen!" 

Now I tried to use it in two different scenarios... is either of those actually okay to use? (The second one refers to the whole situation).

Thank you all!


----------



## Hutschi

Hi,

it is not fully correct as you already supposed.

"Es" is not used in this context with "bekommen".

The standard form is: 

1) "Es ist ein sonniger Tag und ich trage kein*e* Sonnencreme (female), *ich *könnte einen Sonnenbrand bekommen!"

But you can say 

with "mir":
2) "Es ist ein sonniger Tag und ich trage keine Sonnencreme, das/es könnte mir  einen Sonnenbrand (ein)bringen!" 

without "mir":
3) "Es ist ein sonniger Tag und ich trage keine Sonnencreme, das/es  könnte einen Sonnenbrand hervorrufen!"

Don't mix up "become"="werden" and "bekommen"=to receive, to get ...

You can say: Das könnte ein Sonnenbrand werden. (but not:  Das könnte ein Sonnenbrand bekommen.)


----------



## comeauch

Hutschi said:


> Hi,
> 
> it is not fully correct as you already supposed.
> 
> "Es" is not used in this context with "bekommen".
> 
> The standard form is:
> 
> 1) "Es ist ein sonniger Tag und ich trage kein*e* Sonnencreme (female), *ich *könnte einen Sonnenbrand bekommen!"
> 
> But you can say
> 
> with "mir":
> 2) "Es ist ein sonniger Tag und ich trage keine Sonnencreme, das/es könnte mir  einen Sonnenbrand (ein)bringen!"
> 
> without "mir":
> 3) "Es ist ein sonniger Tag und ich trage keine Sonnencreme, das/es  könnte einen Sonnenbrand hervorrufen!"
> 
> Don't mix up "become"="werden" and "bekommen"=to receive, to get ...
> 
> You can say: Das könnte ein Sonnenbrand werden. (but not:  Das könnte ein Sonnenbrand bekommen.)



Thank you for the corrections!
However, what difference does it makes whether I use "es" or "das"? I guess it doesn't change the meaning... but is there any stylistic considerations to be taken cared of?


----------



## Hutschi

The basic meaning of "es" and "das" can be the same if they are unstressed. 
But usually you can only stress "das" to indicate that you point at the thing or situation.

You point to the skin and say: "Das könnte ein Sonnenbrand werden." You cannot replace "das" by "es" here.

Or you say (in this case in coll. language) "Ich war zu lange in der Sonne. Das/es könnte ein Sonnenbrand werden."
Here "das" is not a pointer but indicates that it is a resultat. You can replace it with "es".


----------



## comeauch

Oh, now I'm getting it 
Thanks again Hutschi!

It's probably just as the english "it" and "that". I could both say "It might cause me a sunburn" or "That might cause me a sunburn". We don't really have this in French (which is my native language!), that's the reason why I was confused


----------



## Hutschi

comeauch said:


> Oh, now I'm getting it
> Thanks again Hutschi!
> 
> It's probably just as the english "it" and "that". I could both say "It might cause me a sunburn" or "That might cause me a sunburn". We don't really have this in French (which is my native language!), that's the reason why I was confused



Exactly.
Mostly you can replace "it" by "that" but in the other direction it depends more on context.


----------

