# Die Adjektivendungen



## alvincrew

I have been through quite a number of websites and books regarding this topic. The many varieties of explanations confuses me. Here is one of the easier and more logical method that I have digested. However, I'm not so confident about this. Can someone verify if this method is complete and reliable?

Concept of Determiners:
If a determiner is present, it already conveys the essential information about the noun’s gender and case. Therefore, the adjective can take on a relatively uninformative weak declension. However, if no determiner is present, the adjective has to convey the information about the noun’s gender and case by taking up a strong declension.

A determiner is any der-wort (der, die, das, dieser, jener, welcher, jeder, etc.) or any ein-wort with an ending (eine, einem, keinen, ihre, meinem, unsere, etc. BUT NOT ein, kein, mein, sein, ihr, unser, euer). 

Presence of Determiners: Weak Declensions
    Männlich    Weiblich    Sächlich    Plural
Nominativ    -e    -e    -e    -en
Akkusativ    -en    -e    -e    -en
Dativ    -en    -en    -en    -en
Genitiv    -en    -en    -en    -en

Absence of Determiners: Strong Declensions
    Männlich    Weiblich    Sächlich    Plural
Nominativ    -er    -e    -es    -e
Akkusativ    -en    -e    -es    -e
Dativ    -em    -er    -em    -en
Genitiv    -en1    -er    -en1    -er

Notes:
1.    Strong declensions decline like definite articles (der, die, das) with two exceptions: masculine and neuter genitive forms which take up –en endings.

2.    If there are more than one adjective preceding a noun, they all take the same endings.

3.    If the adjective does not precede the noun, it takes no ending. These are usually predicate adjectives or adverbs. (Eg: Das Bett ist warm./Der hund rennt schnell.)

4.    Singular limiting adjectives like viel, wenig and genug takes no ending. In plural, they take up regular adjective endings. (Eg: Ich habe wenig Zeit aber viele Geld.)


----------



## berndf

You are missing one distinction: definite and indefinite determiners require different adjective endings, i.e. there are not two (strong and weak) but three paradigm: _strong_ (no determiner), _weak_ (definite determiner) and _mixed_ (indefinite determiner). Declension tables like this one show all three.

Ad 3.: You are right _predicative adjectives_ are invariant in German. In this respect, German differs from Romance languages.

Ad 4.: It is "viel Geld", not "viele Geld". "Geld" is singular. Because of there bizarre behaviour, these words form a class of their own, they are called Indefinitpronomen.


----------



## Dan2

berndf said:


> You are missing one distinction: definite and indefinite determiners require different adjective endings, i.e. there are not two (strong and weak) but three paradigm: _strong_ (no determiner), _weak_ (definite determiner) and _mixed_ (indefinite determiner).


But the weak and mixed are very similar, there being a different form for the mixed ONLY when the _ein_- word has no ending.  I think Alvincrew has captured this by saying:


alvincrew said:


> A determiner is any der-wort (der, die, das,  dieser, jener, welcher, jeder, etc.) or any ein-wort with an ending  (eine, einem, keinen, ihre, meinem, unsere, etc. BUT NOT ein, kein,  mein, sein, ihr, unser, euer).





berndf said:


> Ad 3.: You are right _predicative adjectives_ are invariant in German. In this respect, German differs from Romance languages.


And, interestingly, from the Scandinavian languages, which otherwise have a much simpler inflectional system than German.


----------



## Dan2

No one has explicitly responded to Alvincrew's question ("is the following correct?"), so I'll jump in and say, "looks good to me".

Some time ago I asked myself the same question that Alvincrew apparently did: what's a simple, logical way to summarize the system of German adjective endings? Here's what I came up with. It looks different from the traditional approach, but if you're studying German and haven't yet mastered the adjective endings, you might want to consider it and "see if it works for you". (I avoided using the traditional terms "strong" and "weak" since many people find these confusing.  These rules require of course that one first learn the _der_- and _ein_-endings.) Please alert me to any errors.

--------
Adjectives can take an "information-carrying" ending (an ending that gives information about case/number/gender), or a "default" ending.

The information-carrying endings are exactly the same as found on a _der_-word like _dieser_.

The default ending is -en, except for nom. sing. (and acc. sing. when it looks like nom., i.e., fem./neut.), where it is -e.

Key rule: If there's a preceding _der_ or _ein _word, and that word has an information-carrying ending (_der_-words always do), or the noun itself is marked for case ("_Wassers_"), then the adjective takes the default ending (no point in repeating the information).  Otherwise the adjective takes the information-carrying ending.
--------


----------



## alvincrew

In other learning materials you might often come across a 3rd table for adjective endings, designed to decline adjectives that come after any ein-wort and possessive articles with no endings (ein, kein, mein, sein, ihr, unser, euer). If we take a closer look at this 3rd table, we will notice that it is not much different from the weak declensions except in Männlich + Nominativ and Sächlich + Nominativ/Accusativ combinations.

Hence, to make things easier, the table of mixed declensions are absorbed into the table of weak declensions by adding an exception clause to exclude any ein-wort without endings from the definition of determiners. These words, existing only in the abovementioned combinations, will then in be this method, treated as non-determiners and safely take up the strong declensions.


----------



## alvincrew

berndf said:


> Ad 4.: It is "viel Geld", not "viele Geld". "Geld" is singular. Because of there bizarre behaviour, these words form a class of their own, they are called Indefinitpronomen.



So am i correct to say that in singular, they do not take up any endings but in plural, they will take up regular endings according to the described noun's case and sex?

And would it also be correct to say that adjectives following these Indefinitpronomen have a strong declension?


----------



## Gernot Back

alvincrew said:


> berndf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ad 4.:  It is "viel Geld", not "viele Geld". "Geld" is singular. Because of  there bizarre behaviour, these words form a class of their own, they are  called Indefinitpronomen.
> 
> 
> 
> And would it also be correct to say that adjectives following these Indefinitpronomen have a strong declension?
Click to expand...

"_Viel_" is not an indefinite pronoun here, but an adjective without ending. Pronouns are always "pro-forms" ("Stellvertreter" of a noun phrase or verb  phrase), whereas articles are always determiners ("Begleiter" of a noun  phrase). So you have to distinguish strictly between 


demonstrative pronouns and demonstrative articles
definite pronouns and definite articles
possessive pronouns and possessive articles
indefinite pronouns and indefinite articles
 negative pronouns and negative articles
E.g. there is a difference between the possesive article _mein _in "_mein Auto_" and the possessive pronoun _mein*s*_, between the negative article _kein _in "_kein Mensch_" and the negative pronoun _kein*er*_ and so on ...



Dan2 said:


> Some time ago I asked myself the same question that  Alvincrew apparently did: what's a simple, logical way to summarize the  system of German adjective endings?



I would summarize it that way:

A German article can be in its original nominative form (the accusative forms of the feminine and neuter articles in the singular are always identical to its corresponding original nominative form in the singular) or it can be modified (like e.g in the masculine accusative singular or in all of the dative and genitive forms.) 

And here comes the rule:


After a modified article the adjective always takes the ending "_-en_".
After a non-modified definite or demonstrative article the adjective takes the ending "-_e_".
After a "_zero article_" (without article) the adjective always takes the ending of the definite article, except for the genitive singular in the masculine and the neuter, where it is "_-en_" instead.
In all other instances after a non-modified indefinite, negative or possesive article the adjective always takes the ending of the definite article.
With quantifying determiners like "_alle_", "_einige_", "_viele_", "_sämtliche_" etc. it depends on whether the quantifier is a definite or an indefinite one: "_alle_", "_sämtliche_", "_jegliche_", "_etliche_" specify definite quantities since there are no exceptions left. "_Einige_" and "_viele_" specify indefinite quantities.


Definite Quantifiers behave like a definite article and a following article takes the same ending it would take after the definite article.
Indefinite quantifiers behave like the zero article and a following article takes the same ending as it would take after the zero article.
The determiners "manch-", "solch-" and "welch-" are an exception:


If they take the ending of the definite article, they also behave like a definite article and following adjectives take the corresponding article: "mancher kluge Mensch", "solche warme Milch", "welches weiße Mehl".
If they are used without the ending, they behave like the zero article:"manch kluger Mensch", "solch warme Milch", "welch weißes  Mehl".


----------



## alvincrew

Sorry i don't really understand the part about definite and indefinite articles.

Perhaps someone can help with the adjective endings of viel, genug and wenig?


----------



## Gernot Back

alvincrew said:


> Sorry i don't really understand the part about definite and indefinite articles.
> 
> Perhaps someone can help with the adjective endings of viel, genug and wenig?


With countable amounts of items or individuals the adjectives "_viel_" and "_wenig_" take an ending: 

_In diesem Land gibt es wenig*e* __Reiche und viel*e* Arme. _

With amounts you don't count exactly you often use the singular and drop the ending of the attributive adjective.


_Für diese Kekse brauchen Sie viel braunen Zucker und nur wenig weißes Mehl._
_Reiche haben viel Geld. Arme haben wenig Geld._
Aber: 


_In diesem Land werden viel*e* Geld*er* von den Machthabern verschwendet._
_Biochemiker unterscheiden neben Saccharose, Glukose und Fructose viel*e* weitere Zucker._
"_Genug_" (sufficiently) is an adverb and not an adjective, so it cannot have an ending.


----------



## radagasty

Gernot Back said:


> With countable amounts of items or individuals the adjectives "_viel_" and "_wenig_" take an ending:
> 
> _In diesem Land gibt es wenig*e* __Reiche und viel*e* Arme. _
> 
> With amounts you don't count exactly you often use the singular and drop the ending of the attributive adjective.
> 
> 
> _Reiche haben viel Geld. Arme haben wenig Geld._
> Aber:
> 
> 
> _In diesem Land werden viel*e* Geld*er* von den Machthabern verschwendet._


For a long time, I thought the rule was that the uninflected form _viel/wenig_ is used in the singular and the inflected _viele/wenige_ in the plural, or alternatively, the former means 'much/little' whilst the latter mean 'many/few', but then I later learnt that the inflected form _viele/wenige_ can be used in the singular as well, meaning 'much/little', e.g., _mein weniges Geld_, so I am more confused than ever.


----------



## Gernot Back

radagasty said:


> but then I later learnt that the inflected form _viele/wenige_ can be used in the singular as well, meaning 'much/little', e.g., _mein weniges Geld_, so I am more confused than ever.



Thanks to you, Radagasty, I saw my original mistake in rule #4, which I have corrected now: 



Gernot Back said:


> In all other instances after a  non-modified indefinite, negative or possesive article the adjective  always takes the ending of the definite article.


 Rule #4 must refer to *non-modified *indefinite, negative or possesive articles of course. Because of this rule, it is clear, why the adjectives "_viel_" and "_wenig_" must take an ending after "_mein_", "_dein_", "_sein_",  etc. and don't drop it as it would be the case with no article preceding.

By the way: In the case of "_ein wenig Geld_" "_ein_" is not an indefinite article preceding the noun "_Geld_"; it is part of the complex adverb "_ein wenig_". An indefinite article + another co-ordinate quantifier "_viel_" or "_wenig_" wouldn't make sense anyway. It only makes sense with non-quantifying adjectives:
_Für ein kleines Trinkgeld, Ein fremdes Geld ..._


----------



## alvincrew

In my little german grammer guidebook, it shows this table that viel/wenig *without a preceding article* will be declined as follows:
-             Männlich Weiblich Sächlich Plural
Nominativ   -               -          -        -e
Akkusativ   -               -          -        -e
Dativ         -               -          -        -en
Genitiv       -en            -er       -en      -er

This would mean that, effectively they don't take on any endings for singular nouns (or in many cases uncountable singulars for instance Zeit oder Geld) except in the Genitiv case.

Would it also be correct to say that if *there is an article preceding* viel/wenig, they will follow the regular declension like other adjectives? Whether they take up a strong or weak ending will depend on the article preceding them.

Please correct my understanding. Thanks


----------



## Gernot Back

alvincrew said:


> In my little german grammer guidebook, it shows this table that viel/wenig *without a preceding article* will be declined as follows:
> -             Männlich Weiblich Sächlich Plural
> Nominativ   -               -          -        -e
> Akkusativ   -               -          -        -e
> Dativ         -               -          -        -en
> Genitiv       -en            -er       -en      -er


The expression "_viel*en* Dank"_ in the accusative case *without *a preceding article would prove your grammar guidebook wrong, but we might argue that this is yet another exception to the exception to the exception ...

What I see from your grammar guidebook table though, is that my rules are still not refined enough either in the singular genitive case, because it's true that you can't use "_viel_" or "_wenig_" without an ending here.


_binnen wenig*er* Zeit ..._
_wegen (zu) viel*en* Geldes ..._
Otherwise you would interprete it as a dative with these prepositions:


_binnen wenig Zeit ..._
_wegen (zu) viel Geld ..._
Compare this with a form in the plural, where you can clearly identify dative and genitive:


 _binnen zwei*er *__Tage __/ __binnen __wenig*er* Tage ..._ (genitive)
 _binnen zwei __Tage*n *__/ __binnen __wenig*en* Tage*n *... _(dative)
_wegen viel*er* Schwarzgelder ..._ (genitive)
_wegen viel*en* Schwarzgelder*n* ... _(dative)



alvincrew said:


> Would it also be correct to say that if *there is an article preceding* viel/wenig, they will follow the regular declension like other adjectives? Whether they take up a strong or weak ending will depend on the article preceding them.


 Yes, that would be correct!:


_Das viele Geld..._
_Mit meinem wenigen Trinkgeld ..._
_Korrumpiert durch jenes viele Schwarzgeld ..._


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> And here comes the rule:
> 
> 
> After a modified article the adjective always takes the ending "_-en_".
> After a non-modified definite or demonstrative article the adjective takes the ending "-_e_".
> After a "_zero article_" (without article) the adjective always takes the ending of the definite article, except for the genitive singular in the masculine and the neuter, where it is "_-en_" instead.
> In all other instances after a non-modified indefinite, negative or possesive article the adjective always takes the ending of the definite article.


How does "ein großes Haus" (nominative) fit into your rules?


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> Rule #4 must refer to *non-modified *indefinite, negative or possesive articles of course. Because of this rule, it is clear, why the adjectives "_viel_" and "_wenig_" must take an ending after "_mein_", "_dein_", "_sein_",  etc. and don't drop it as it would be the case with no article preceding.


This does not explain why "viel" and "wenig" unlike other adjectives drops the ending without an article but retains it with an article, i.e. it does not explain why you say
_gut*es* Geld
_and
_mein gut*es* Geld
_
but
_viel Geld
_and_
mein viel*es* Geld.

_My guess is that this asymmetry is a reflex of older adjective declensions rules: From OHG to early ModHG the nominative and accusative endings were optional. This has survived only in set phrases, like "gut Ding will Weile haben" or, I surmise, also in those adjectives which correspond to indefinite pronouns.


----------



## Gernot Back

berndf said:


> How does "ein großes Haus" (nominative) fit into your rules?


Rule #4: 





> after a non-modified indefinite, negative or possesive article the adjective always takes the ending of the definite article.


"_Ein_" even in the accusative form is a *non-modified* indefinite article. In the feminine and the neuter accusative case "_eine_" respectively "_ein_" are not modified from their base forms in the nominative case. 

In the masculine, though, "_einen_" is a modified form of "_ein_", which is why you say "_ein groß*er* Garten_" in the nominative, but "_einen groß*en* Garten_" in the accusative case (according to my rule #1).


----------



## alvincrew

Gernot Back said:


> Thanks to you, Radagasty, I saw my original mistake in rule #4, which I have corrected now:
> 
> Rule #4 must refer to *non-modified *indefinite, negative or possesive articles of course. Because of this rule, it is clear, why the adjectives "_viel_" and "_wenig_" must take an ending after "_mein_", "_dein_", "_sein_",  etc. and don't drop it as it would be the case with no article preceding.
> 
> By the way: In the case of "_ein wenig Geld_" "_ein_" is not an indefinite article preceding the noun "_Geld_"; it is part of the complex adverb "_ein wenig_". An indefinite article + another co-ordinate quantifier "_viel_" or "_wenig_" wouldn't make sense anyway. It only makes sense with non-quantifying adjectives:
> _Für ein kleines Trinkgeld, Ein fremdes Geld ..._





Gernot Back said:


> The expression "_viel*en* Dank"_ in the accusative case *without *a preceding article would prove your grammar guidebook wrong, but we might argue that this is yet another exception to the exception to the exception ...



Ich verstehe nicht.

But for the case of Vielen Dank, it might really be an exception since Dank has no plural form. Do you mean that viel/wenig takes on adjectives even in singular forms? What are the other adjectives that falls in the viel/wenig category?

My German tutor dismissed my fine tuning questions very easily. And all these websites and books present things so differently. That's one challenging thing i really love about German is to find a way that you can absorb and understand it in your own way.


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> Rule #4: "_Ein_" even in the accusative form is a *non-modified* indefinite article. In the feminine and the neuter accusative case "_eine_" respectively "_ein_" are not modified from their base forms in the nominative case.


And where is the "ending of the definite article" in "ein groß*es* Haus" (the definite article is "d*as*", not "d*es*")?


----------



## Gernot Back

berndf said:


> And where is the "ending of the definite article" in "ein groß*es* Haus" (the definite article is "d*as*", not "d*es*")?


Well, maybe to be absolutely precise I should only print the *s* in bold (the preceding vowel being a weakened variant). Or we should talk about the ending of the demonstrative article instead, that the adjective takes in these cases. But actually I think this is splitting hairs now.


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> Well, maybe to be absolutely precise I should only print the *s* in bold


Now, I see what you mean.


----------



## alvincrew

OK. Das ist mein neues Verständnis. Bitte koennen sie mich korrigieren:

1. When NOT preceded by any articles:
- Viel/Wenig takes no endings for a singular noun (except in Genitiv where it will take up strong declensions) -> viel Geld, wegen vielen Geldes
- Viel/Wenig follows regular ending rules for a plural noun -> viele Gelder

2. When preceded by an article:
- Viel/Wenig follows regular ending rules whether for both singular and plural nouns -> das viele Geld

3. All other adjectives that follow Viel/Wenig
- without an ending, will take up strong declensions
- with an ending, will take the same endings (decline in the same way)


----------



## Gernot Back

This sounds OK to me; at least I can't think of any example that would contradict these rules at the moment.


----------



## alvincrew

Noch eine Frage,

Ist dies richtig: Nach fein *geschnittem* Schinken mit Melone wurde die lecker *aussehende* Hauptspeise serviert.

In the above sentence, should an adjective (or participle adjectives in this case), take up strong or weak declensions if there is an adverb between the article and adjective?


----------



## berndf

In this case it doesn't matter as "aussehende" is both strong and weak in nominative, singular, feminine. But to answer your questions: presents of adverbs do not modify the any declensions. This is almost axiomatic because a in a valid sentence containing an adverb, the adverb can be deleted and the sentence remains grammatically valid; it might be semantic nonsense without the adverb but that is a different matter.


----------



## Gernot Back

alvincrew said:


> OK. Das ist mein neues Verständnis. Bitte koennen sie mich korrigieren:
> 
> 1. When NOT preceded by any articles:
> - Viel/Wenig takes no endings for a singular noun (except in Genitiv where it will take up strong declensions)


... plus the exception in the accusative case I mentioned before: "_vielen Dank_"


alvincrew said:


> Ist dies richtig: Nach fein *geschnittem* Schinken mit Melone wurde ...


_geschnitt*en*em_


----------

