# Of course



## Tino_no

Hi, I'd like to now if the word "Selbstverständlich" means "of course",
ie: "Are you going to Mexico? Of course" "Wirst du nach Mexiko gehen? Selbstverständlich", does it sounds very formal? or it is incorrect? please help me.


----------



## MrMagoo

Tino_no said:
			
		

> Hi, I'd like to now if the word "Selbstverständlich" means "of course",
> ie: "Are you going to Mexico? Of course" "Wirst du nach Mexiko gehen? Selbstverständlich", does it sounds very formal? or it is incorrect? please help me.


 
Ja, das tut es, im Sinne von "understood".
Eine andere Übersetzung für "of course" ist _natürlich_.

Gruß
-MrMagoo


----------



## Tino_no

Danke mr.magoo


----------



## elroy

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> Ja, das tut es, im Sinne von "understood".
> Eine andere Übersetzung für "of course" ist _natürlich_.
> 
> Gruß
> -MrMagoo


 
I wouldn't translate it is "understood."  The connotation is more like "that goes without quesiton," "that's self-evident," "that's crystal clear," etc.

As a response to a question, I would translate it as "Most certainly," which is also very formal.


----------



## Tino_no

So, how could I say "of course" in an informal way?


----------



## elroy

Tino_no said:
			
		

> So, how could I say "of course" in an informal way?


 
Na klar!


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> I wouldn't translate it is "understood." The connotation is more like "that goes without quesiton," "that's self-evident," "that's crystal clear," etc.
> 
> As a response to a question, I would translate it as "Most certainly," which is also very formal.


I was about to write the same thing. I don't like the English word "understood" here, which has a different meaning, but "natürlich" sounds equally informal to me. 

Gaer


----------



## nic456

"Are you going to Mexico?"
"Wirst du nach Mexiko gehen?

Of course
(Inf) Na klar; klar doch; aber sicher;
(Affirmative phrases) Darauf kannst du Gift nehmen  ; was denkst du denn? [How could you even consider me not going]


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> Na klar!


 
alternartives:

Klar!
Logisch!
Aber klar doch!
Klar doch!
Aber klar!
Aber sicher!
Na sicher! (compare the AE phrase "Sure")
EDIT: Geht klar! (impossible in the context we're talking about here)
Warum nicht? (has a slightly negative connotation, but would be ok in this context)


----------



## Tino_no

Thank you very much‼


-Tino


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> alternartives:
> 
> Klar!
> Logisch!
> Aber klar doch!
> Klar doch!
> Aber klar!
> Aber sicher!
> Na sicher! (compare the AE phrase "Sure")
> Geht klar!
> Warum nicht? (has a slightly negative connotation, but would be ok in this context)


Who, what is interesting to me is that all these words or phrases seem related, but many are also different.

The same thing is true in English. There are so many different ways to use "of course".

"Of course! It's so obvious now. Why didn't I see it before?"

(Here you suddenly understand something.)

A: "Are you looking forward to going on vacation?"
B: "Of course!"

(Now it just means: naturally, why not…)

"I don't like writing German. Of course, that also means that it takes me a long time to write something in German, if I have to."

(As a result of the first thing, the second thing is obviously true.)

There are three different meanings, and I'll bet there are more. Don't you find that the same thing happens in German? These short phrases are used in different situations, and we just get the meaning, by "feel" and context.

Gaer


----------



## nic456

Whodunit,

I disagree about using "Geht klar!" [Fine with me!] in the given context.
"Geht klar!" has the meaning of agreeing to something, but the speaker rather seems to affirm or confirm the trip, not to agree to join someone on the trip, which may nonetheless be the case in the wider (unspecified) context.


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> Who, what is interesting to me is that all these words or phrases seem related, but many are also different.


 
The same goes for German. So, let me translate the important parts in your examples:



> "Of course! It's so obvious now. Why didn't I see it before?"


 
Natürlich!
Logisch!
Klar (all above examples with "klar", except for "geht klar")
Echt mal!
Stimmt!
etc.



> A: "Are you looking forward to going on vacation?"
> B: "Of course!"


 
See my previous post, except for "Geht klar". This is the word we're talking about in this thread.



> "I don't like writing German. Of course, that also means that it takes me a long time to write something in German, if I have to."


 
Here you need a German adverb:

Natürlich ...
Logischerweise ...
Mit Sicherheit ... (not really in this context, but is sometimes possible for "of course")
etc.


----------



## Whodunit

nic456 said:
			
		

> Whodunit,
> 
> I disagree about using "Geht klar!" [Fine with me!] in the given context.
> "Geht klar!" has the meaning of agreeing to something, but the speaker rather seems to affirm or confirm the trip, not to agree to join someone on the trip, which may nonetheless be the case in the wider (unspecified) context.


 
Objection granted. 

I'm gonna edit my post; thank you very much.


----------



## gaer

My sentence:

"I don't like writing German. Of course, that also means that it takes me a long time to write something in German, if I have to." 


			
				Whodunit said:
			
		

> Here you need a German adverb:
> 
> Natürlich ...
> Logischerweise ...
> Mit Sicherheit ... (not really in this context, but is sometimes possible for "of course")
> etc.


That's exactly what I had in mind.

By the way, this is slang I think, but there is another thing I like for "logisch":

"Na logo!"

I've seen that. I thought it was rather cool. I would not write it myself, of course. 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> My sentence:
> 
> "I don't like writing German. Of course, that also means that it takes me a long time to write something in German, if I have to."
> 
> That's exactly what I had in mind.
> 
> By the way, this is slang I think, but there is another thing I like for "logisch":
> 
> "Na logo!"
> 
> I've seen that. I thought it was rather cool. I would not write it myself, of course.
> 
> Gaer


 
Yes, you're right, gaer. That is really slang and sometimes cool. 

But do you like it? Because when I used it in a conversation with Elroy, he said he doesn't like the word. I suppose it is like the English "nuff" for "enough". 

But nevertheless, you can't use "logo" or "na logo" in this context. It's treated like "na klar", which you can't use as an adverb.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Yes, you're right, gaer. That is really slang and sometimes cool.
> 
> But do you like it? Because when I used it in a conversation with Elroy, he said he doesn't like the word.


Yes. I enjoy slang, although I think we should mostly avoid it here. I should probably avoid "nuff said" for the same reason.


> But nevertheless, you can't use "logo" or "na logo" in this context. It's treated like "na klar", which you can't use as an adverb.


In what context?  

What are we using as an adverb for? 

I'm lost.  

I'm sure I've seen this, as an even shorter form: "Logo!" With out "na". But now I'm not sure. At any rate, when you say, "Logical!", in English, although it may appear to be an adjective, it means: "But of course."

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> Yes. I enjoy slang, although I think we should mostly avoid it here. I should probably avoid "nuff said" for the same reason.


 
You should, but I beg you not to do that in most cases where slang is applicable, since I want to learn it by patterns. 



> In what context?
> 
> What are we using as an adverb for?
> 
> I'm lost.


 
I said "this context", so I was referring to this discussion in this thread and your question many a post ago (Elias? ). We use an adverb in situations where an actual adjective describes another adjective. You know, I was referring to this sentence:

"_I don't like writing German. Of course, that also means that it takes me a long time to write something in German, if I have to._"

I hope you get it now.



> I'm sure I've seen this, as an even shorter form: "Logo!" With out "na". But now I'm not sure. At any rate, when you say, "Logical!", in English, although it may appear to be an adjective, it means: "But of course."


 
Is IS used without "na". Maybe this "na" carries the idea of superiority and haughtiness, such as in:

"Na logo, Mann, dann muss man doch wissen!"
"Oh, but of course, man, that's the basics!"


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> You should, but I beg you not to do that in most cases where slang is applicable, since I want to learn it by patterns.


We can do that in PMs or in threads that are about slang. 


> I said "this context", so I was referring to this discussion in this thread and your question many a post ago (Elias? ). We use an adverb in situations where an actual adjective describes another adjective. You know, I was referring to this sentence:
> 
> "_I don't like writing German. Of course, that also means that it takes me a long time to write something in German, if I have to._"
> 
> I hope you get it now.


Yes. It's clear. I was referring to your word "logisich", in your list of possible words that might be used, not to that sentence. 


> Maybe this "na" carries the idea of superiority and haughtiness, such as in:
> 
> "Na logo, Mann, dann muss man doch wissen!"
> "Oh, but of course, man, that's the basics!"


It's a "feel thing", isn't it.? What happens to an idea when a word is added has to be experienced in conversation, I think. But I see what you mean. 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> We can do that in PMs or in threads that are about slang.


 
I think some words are allowed in all forums here. But we shouldn't write in complete slang. 



> It's a "feel thing", isn't it.? What happens to an idea when a word is added has to be experienced in conversation, I think. But I see what you mean.


 
This part is very strange for me. Would you please reword or explain the underlined part? Is there a comma or a word missing?


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> I think some words are allowed in all forums here. But we shouldn't write in complete slang.
> 
> 
> 
> This part is very strange for me. Would you please reword or explain the underlined part? Is there a comma or a word missing?


 
"What happens to an idea when a word is added has to be experienced in conversation, I think."

I don't understand what I wrote either.

Let me try again.

_When an extra word is added, in conversation, we have to experience what changes. It's all a matter of feel._

Please forget what I wrote. It is absolutely horrible English. I could fix it, but it would still be confusing. 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> "What happens to an idea when a word is added has to be experienced in conversation, I think."
> 
> I don't understand what I wrote either.
> 
> Let me try again.
> 
> _When an extra word is added, in conversation, we have to experience what changes. It's all a matter of feel._
> 
> Please forget what I wrote. It is absolutely horrible English. I could fix it, but it would still be confusing.
> 
> Gaer


 
Okay, I understand your idea now. Your English is much more perfect now.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Okay, I understand your idea now. Your English is much more perfect now.


That's a rather diplomatic way to put it. 

Sometimes I absolutely cringe when I read what I have written in emails. I see responses to what I've written, with my original words clearly displayed, and often I think the people with whom I correspond are geniuses when they somehow manage to understand what I MEANT to write! 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> That's a rather diplomatic way to put it.
> 
> Sometimes I absolutely cringe when I read what I have written in emails. I see responses to what I've written, with my original words clearly displayed, and often I think the people with whom I correspond are geniuses when they somehow manage to understand what I MEANT to write!
> 
> Gaer


 
That's not bad at all, Gaer. Everyone makes mistake (even I in German, even Elroy in Arabic, and even Jana in Czech). Nobody's perfect and that's good.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> That's not bad at all, Gaer. Everyone makes mistake (even I in German, even Elroy in Arabic, and even Jana in Czech). Nobody's perfect and that's good.


Right. 

It is connected to speed (too much). However, we all know that if we write anything important that need to be error free, it's always wise to have at least one trusted person proofread what we have *written*. Our own mistakes are often the hardest to find. 

Edit: I correct it, Who… 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> Right.
> 
> It is connected to speed (too much). However, we all know that if we write anything important that need to be error free, it's always wise to have at least one trusted person proofread what we have read (do you mean "read or "written"? I know both are correct here, but just out of curiosity; you know why ). Our own mistakes are often the hardest to find.
> 
> Gaer


 
I second that, especially the last sentence.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> I second that, especially the last sentence.


I meant "have written". You caught me. I'm editing it now. 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> I meant "have written". You caught me. I'm editing it now.
> 
> Gaer


 
Ah yes, "have written". I assumed you used the past, because I just saw "read" should be in the past - so he wanted to express that, too. I didn't see "have" before, that's why I suggested "wrote". I'm editing it as well.


----------

