# keine Zeit zum Lesen / zu lesen



## merquiades

Hallo.   Ich habe eine frage.  Warum sagt man in diesem Satz "zum" lesen und nicht "zu" lesen?  Kann man auch "zu" sagen?  Ist es stilitisch?

Vielen dank!

Die Bedeutung is aber einfach.  
Ich arbeite zu viel.  Ich habe keine zeit zum lesen.
I'm working too much.  I've got no time to read.


----------



## Resa Reader

I would always say "Ich habe keine Zeit *zum Lesen*." 

Take note that "Lesen" is used as a noun here. Mabe you could regard it as a sort of "gerund".

I would however say "Ich habe keine Zeit, um das Buch zu lesen." I think the object "book" makes all the difference here.


----------



## merquiades

Resa Reader said:


> I would always say "Ich habe keine Zeit *zum Lesen*."
> 
> Take note that "Lesen" is used as a noun here. Mabe you could regard it as a sort of "gerund".
> 
> I would however say "*Ich habe keine Zeit, um das Buch zu lesen*." I think the object "book" makes all the difference here.


Thanks. Okay, so maybe we could say you need an object for "zu" then, without which it is "zum"?

Ich habe keine Zeit um den Hamburger zu essen.
Ich habe keine Zeit zum Essen.

Ich habe keine Lust zum Lesen
Ich habe keine Lust um eine Zeitung zu lesen.

Ich habe keine Zeit zum Schlaffen.
Ich habe keine Zeit in meinem Bett zu schlaffen.


----------



## Frank78

merquiades said:


> Thanks. Okay, so maybe we could say you need an object for "zu" then, without which it is "zum"?



Definitely not. You don't have to use them as noun.

"Ich habe keine Zeit zu essen/zu lesen/zu schlafen" are valid options as well. And to me they sound better but that may be regional influence.

I think it's the same in English:
"I habe keine Zeit Bücher zu lesen." = "I have no time to read books."
"Ich keine keine Zeit zum *B*ücherlesen." = I have no time for read*ing* books."


----------



## merquiades

Frank78 said:


> Definitely not. You don't have to use them as noun.
> 
> "Ich habe keine Zeit zu essen/zu lesen/zu schlafen" are valid options as well. And to me they sound better but that may be regional influence.


Manuals don't even teach "zum".  It could be regional.  It's something I am starting to detect quite often.  So I'm trying to figure out why the dative article is added and the verb becomes a noun and what that adds.

I don't find any difference between
I have no time to read books
I have no time for reading books
It's just I would probably say the first sentence not the second

If it is just that the difference it would be great.  I'll just zap the _zum_ like I zap the _for_.


----------



## Frank78

merquiades said:


> I don't find any difference between



Neither there is a difference in German.


----------



## merquiades

Frank78 said:


> Neither there is a difference in German.


Perfekt!  Danke


----------



## bearded

To many Germans, and to myself a non-native, ''Ich habe keine Zeit zu lesen'' sounds a bit odd, because it could mean something like ''I don't have to read time'' (compare ''ich habe keine Zeit zu verlieren'' = I don't have to waste any time/I don't have time to waste).
I would always say (like Resa in #2 above) _Ich habe keine Zeit zu*m *Lesen._


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> Hallo.  Ich habe eine frage. Warum sagt man in diesem Satz "zum" lesen und nicht "zu" lesen? Kann man auch "zu" sagen? Ist es stilitisch?


To reconcile Resa's and Frank's replies: Bavarians (like Resa) and Austrians always say _zum_+infinitive and never _zu_+infinitive. Non-Bavarian Germans make the semantic distinction Frank described. In Bavaria and Austria this distinction does not exist.


----------



## merquiades

bearded man said:


> To many Germans, and to myself a non-native, ''Ich habe keine Zeit zu lesen'' sounds a bit odd, because it could mean something like ''I don't have to read time'' (compare ''ich habe keine Zeit zu verlieren'' = I don't have to waste any time/I don't have time to waste).
> I would always say (like Resa in #2 above) _Ich habe keine Zeit zu*m *Lesen._



I see...
For you _Ich habe keine Zeit zu lesen_ is incomplete...
I have got no time to read..... what?
The _zum_ turns it in to a noun
I have got no time for the (act of) reading.



			
				berndf said:
			
		

> To reconcile Resa's and Frank's replies: Bavarians (like Resa) and Austrians always say_zum_+infinitive and never _zu_+infinitive. Non-Bavarian Germans make the semantic distinction Frank described. In Bavaria and Austria this distinction does not exist


.
Ok, that makes sense.  I probably learned northern style German from books etc. but my new conversation teacher is speaking to me in Austrian.


----------



## Resa Reader

berndf said:


> To reconcile Resa's and Frank's replies: Bavarians (like Resa) and Austrians always say _zum_+infinitive and never _zu_+infinitive. Non-Bavarian Germans make the semantic distinction Frank described. In Bavaria and Austria this distinction does not exist.



Yes, I thought that it might have to do with my "Bavarian ears". For me something is missing when I hear "Ich habe keine Zeit zu lesen." ;-)


----------



## merquiades

Thanks to all.  This is getting very clear.


----------



## bearded

I would like to explain more clearly why - in my opinion - _ich habe keine Zeit zu*m *Lesen _is preferable. I do not think that it is just a regional difference, or - as Resa says - a problem of incompleteness. In my view, _ich habe keine Zeit zu lesen _is also grammatically ambiguous.  I know that ''die Zeit lesen'' does not mean anything, but that is precisely what this sentence could mean: _ich hab keine Zeit zu lesen = ich hab keine Zeit, die ich lesen könnte.  _Please compare _ich hab keine Zeitung zu lesen _or _ich hab keine Zeit zu verlieren _(identical constructions).
With _zu*m *Lesen, _any such ambiguity would of course disappear.
Now, I'm sure that _zu lesen _is idiomatic - especially in Northern regions - ,but I think this represents also a grammatical issue.


----------



## berndf

@bearded man: I am sorry, but precisely in this case it would be important to say _Ich hab keine Zeitung zu*m* Lesen_ and also Northerners would always use _zum_ and never _zu_ because _Ich habe keine Zeitung zu lesen_ means _I am expected/obliged/required not to read any newspaper_.


----------



## bearded

berndf said:


> @bearded man: I am sorry, but precisely in this case it would be important to say _Ich hab keine Zeitung zu*m* Lesen_ and also Northerners would always use _zum_ and never _zu_ because _Ich hab keine Zeitung zu lesen_ means _I am expected/obliged/required not to read any newspaper_.


Alright, I see. The example with the newspaper was not the most suitable.
Could you now please deal with ''_ich hab keine Zeit zu verlieren'' _compared to _''ich hab keine Zeit zu lesen''. _Does the possible ambiguity of the latter really exist and play a role? Thank you.


----------



## berndf

_Ich hab keine Zeit zu verlieren can _be read in two ways: _I must not lose_ _any time_ and_ I don't have any time I could lose_. I would say the popularity of the phrase is in part due to this ambiguity because you often want to say both at the same time. The same is true for the analogous phrase _Ich habe nichts zu verschenken_.


----------



## bearded

berndf said:


> _Ich hab keine Zeit zu verlieren can _be read in two ways: _I must not lose_ _any time_ and_ I don't have any time I could lose_. I would say the popularity of the phrase is in part due to this ambiguity because you often want to say both at the same time. The same is true for the analogous phrase _Ich habe nichts zu verschenken_.


Thanks.  And you do not find any ambiguity in _Ich hab keine Zeit zu lesen...? _If not, is it because of the meaning, and not because of the grammar?


----------



## berndf

bearded man said:


> Thanks.  And you do not find any ambiguity in _Ich hab keine Zeit zu lesen...? _If not, is it because of the meaning, and not because of the grammar?


Because of meaning. But if _reading the time_ were semantically possible, _Ich habe keine Zeit zu lesen_ would again mean _I am not supposed to read any time_ and the ambiguity you sense would not be resolved anyway because one would use _zum_ for both of your readings.


----------



## ABBA Stanza

bearded man said:


> I would like to explain more clearly why - in my opinion - _ich habe keine Zeit zu*m *Lesen _is preferable. I do not think that it is just a regional difference, or - as Resa says - a problem of incompleteness. In my view, _ich habe keine Zeit zu lesen _is also grammatically ambiguous.  I know that ''die Zeit lesen'' does not mean anything, but that is precisely what this sentence could mean: _ich hab keine Zeit zu lesen = ich hab keine Zeit, die ich lesen könnte.  _Please compare _ich hab keine Zeitung zu lesen _or _ich hab keine Zeit zu verlieren _(identical constructions).
> With _zu*m *Lesen, _any such ambiguity would of course disappear.
> Now, I'm sure that _zu lesen _is idiomatic - especially in Northern regions - ,but I think this represents also a grammatical issue.


Maybe it would be more illustrative to use the verb _*ab*lesen_ istead of _lesen_, because "Zeit ablesen" is certainly possible, where the sentence _"Ich habe keine Zeit abzulesen"_ has at least these three possible interpretations:

(1) I'm not supposed to read any displayed time information [-> directive; transitive use of _ablesen]_
(2) The time information I would like to read is not available [-> transitive use of _ablesen_]
(3) I don't have the time to read any displayed information [-> intransitive use of _ablesen_]

The alternative of using _"Ich habe keine Zeit *zum Ablesen*"_ eliminates (1) as a possible interpretation, but still leaves the ambiguity between (2) and (3) (as indirectly pointed out by berndf in his last post (#18)).

With sentences such as BM's example _"ich habe keine Zeitung zu lesen"_, only the the interpretations analogous to (1) and (2) are possible (i.e., "I'm not supposed to read any newspapers" vs. "I don't have a newspaper to read"). Although there seem to be regional and/or personal tendencies to preferentially use _"ich habe keine Zeitung zu*m L*esen" _in the latter case, both versions appear to be valid German (as pointed out by Frank78). In particular, it would be wrong to always assume that just because someone is not using the nominalized verb, they are referring to a directive or obligation.

For example, here's an example I picked up on the Internet from the book "Der geheime Zauberbund" by Christine Well (Source):



			
				Christine Well said:
			
		

> _"Nein, [ich interessiere mich für] dieses Sütterlin", sagte Franzi. "Ob es in der Bibliothek wohl ein Buch gibt, wo das noch mal genauer erklärt wird?"
> 
> Oma setzte die Teetasse ab. "Also, ich weiß nicht. Hier in unserer Stadtbibliothek bestimmt nicht (...) Aber ich kann dir das [Sütterlin] Alphabet gern aufschreiben, wenn du möchtest. Es bringt dir nur nicht viel, *wenn du kein Buch zu lesen hast*."_



It's clear here that, despite "zum Lesen" not being used, the author (who grew up in Essen) intends the bit in bold to mean "if you don't have any book to read, rather than "if you're not supposed to read any book".

Just my two cents ... 

Cheers
Abba


----------



## Hutschi

bearded man said:


> To many Germans, and to myself a non-native, ''Ich habe keine Zeit zu lesen'' sounds a bit odd, because it could mean something like ''I don't have to read time'' (compare ''ich habe keine Zeit zu verlieren'' = I don't have to waste any time/I don't have time to waste).
> I would always say (like Resa in #2 above) _Ich habe keine Zeit zu*m *Lesen._


To avoid this, it is possible (and recommended) to write
''Ich habe* keine Zeit*, *zu lesen*.''
_"Ich hab keine *Zeit zu lesen*."_ is blocked by physics, not by grammar.
It is better to use the comma to block the grammar mismatch oddity.

So you can make it clear.

''Ich habe keine Zeit zu verlieren'' I don't have time to waste
''Ich habe keine Zeit, zu verlieren/zum Verlieren'' I don't have time to loose/for loosing (the game)


----------



## bearded

Hutschi said:


> It is better to use the comma to block the grammar mismatch oddity.


A clear and satisfactory reply! Thank you very much.


----------



## merquiades

Hutschi said:


> To avoid this, it is possible (and recommended) to write
> ''Ich habe* keine Zeit*, *zu lesen*.''
> _"Ich hab keine *Zeit zu lesen*."_ is blocked by physics, not by grammar.
> It is better to use the comma to block the grammar mismatch oddity.
> 
> So you can make it clear.
> 
> ''Ich habe keine Zeit zu verlieren'' I don't have time to waste
> ''Ich habe keine Zeit, zu verlieren/zum Verlieren'' I don't have time to loose/for loosing (the game)


Just a quick question, does this comma represent a pause in conversation?


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> Just a quick question, does this comma represent a pause in conversation?


Yes.


----------



## Hutschi

Yes. But if it is missing, there may be a pause, too.
(Crossed with Bernd)

http://rechtschreibrat.ids-mannheim.de/download/regeln2006.pdf



> §75
> E1: Wenn ein bloßer Infinitiv vorliegt, können in den Fallgruppen (2) und (3) die Kommas weggelassen werden, sofern keine Missverständnisse entstehen: Den Plan(,) abzureisen(,) hatte sie schon lange gefasst. Die Angst(,) zu fallen(,) lähmte seine Schritte. Thomas dachte nicht daran(,) zu gehen.



This causes that even if there is no comma, a pause may be required.

''Ich habe keine Zeit zu verlieren'' I don't have time to waste - no pause
''Ich habe keine Zeit, zu verlieren/zum Verlieren'' I don't have time to loose/for loosing (the game) - with pause
Comma is necessary.

''Ich habe* keine Zeit*, *zu lesen*.'' (with pause)
_"Ich hab keine *Zeit zu lesen*."_  (with pause)
Comma is not necessary, because no misunderstanding is possible. (Meaning "collecting time at a field or reading time" without pause is blocked by semantics, it does not make sense.)

I'd recommend the comma here.

Until the reform it was usually not set but was allowed to avoid misunderstandings.
Now it is necessary if misunderstandings are possible in case you omit it.


----------



## Magdeutsch

bearded said:


> To many Germans, and to myself a non-native, ''Ich habe keine Zeit zu lesen'' sounds a bit odd, because it could mean something like ''I don't have to read time'' (compare ''ich habe keine Zeit zu verlieren'' = I don't have to waste any time/I don't have time to waste).
> I would always say (like Resa in #2 above) _Ich habe keine Zeit zu*m *Lesen._


Hallo! Firstly I want to add that in my grammar book has the exact example that you say sounds odd...ich habe Zeit,Angst,Lust  zu +infinitiv.
Secondly, why ich habe keine Zeit zu lesen would be translated to  ''I don't have to read time'' ? Zu means to as I understand it, so for me it is I don't have time to read or literally I have no time  to read.
I would like your opinion after the 5years of the post.
Thank you.


----------



## bearded

Magdeutsch said:


> why ich habe keine Zeit zu lesen would be translated to ''I don't have to read time'' ?


Hallo
Did you read and compare my above example ''Ich habe keine Zeit zu verlieren''? Both sentences have the same structure..

But please consider Hutschi's reply in #20:


> To avoid this, it is possible (and recommended) to write
> ''Ich habe* keine Zeit*, *zu lesen*.''
> _"Ich hab keine *Zeit zu lesen*."_ is blocked by physics, not by grammar.
> It is better to use the comma to block the grammar mismatch oddity.


I find his explanation very clear. The comma would eliminate any ambiguity.


----------



## Magdeutsch

bearded said:


> Hallo
> Did you read and compare my above example ''Ich habe keine Zeit zu verlieren''? Both sentences have the same structure..
> 
> But please consider Hutschi's reply in #20:
> 
> I find his explanation very clear. The comma would eliminate any ambiguity.


Thank you for the prompt answer
Yes yes in another grammar book mentions it is better to use  the comma so that the meaning is clearer. 
Yes I read the verlieren example, but for me ich habe keine Zeit to verlieren is clearly I don't have time to lose...like the " I don't have time to read", without commas to be honest I understand it better


----------



## JClaudeK

Durch "zum + Nomen" ersetzt man doch meistens  "um ..... zu" => Zweck-Sätze, oder?
Siehe z.B. *hier*


> _Max und Tarek brauchen Zeit, *um zu planen*._
> *Präposition zu + nominalisierter Infinitiv*
> Man kann aus dem Verb auch ein Nomen bilden. Dann wird der Satz kürzer und manchmal auch einfacher. Man benutzt dann nicht _um ... zu_, sondern die Präposition _zu_.
> [...]
> _Max und Tarek brauchen Zeit *zum Planen*._




Man könnte auch sagen "Ich habe keine Zeit, um zu lesen*."
Idiomatischer ist aber "Ich habe keine Zeit zum Lesen/ zu lesen."


> Siehe Duden
> die Infinitivgruppe gibt den Zweck des Sachverhaltes wieder, der vom Hauptsatz bezeichnet wird: _Wir sprangen ins Wasser_ [= Sachverhalt], _um uns abzukühlen_ [= Zweck].
> ***Vor allem in der geschriebenen Sprache wird in beiden Fällen gelegentlich das _um_ auch weggelassen, ohne dass sich dadurch die Bedeutung ändert: _Er ist alt genug, [um] dies zu verstehen. Sie wählte eine neue Methode, [um] die Frage zu lösen._ Hier sind also _um zu_ und _zu_ austauschbar.


----------



## bearded

> Hier sind also _um zu_ und _zu_ austauschbar.


Wie man sieht, ist in den zuletzt zitierten zu-Beispielsätzen vom Duden das Komma beibehalten.
Vgl.


Hutschi said:


> It is better to use the comma to block the grammar mismatch oddity.


----------



## Kajjo

bearded said:


> Wie man sieht, ist in den zuletzt zitierten zu-Beispielsätzen vom Duden das Komma beibehalten.


In der Bedeutung "um zu" ist das Komma ja auch obligatorisch.


----------



## Demiurg

JClaudeK said:


> Man könnte auch sagen "Ich habe keine Zeit, um zu lesen*."
> Idiomatischer ist aber "Ich habe keine Zeit zum Lesen/ zu lesen."



Wenn man ein Objekt einfügt, ist auch Variante 1 idiomatisch:

_Ich habe keine Zeit, um das alles zu lesen._

Ohne "um" klingt der Satz etwas gehobener:

_Ich habe keine Zeit, das alles zu lesen._


----------

