# He doesn't remember the title of the film, although he liked it very much



## scu

Hello,
I want to translate the following sentence:
"He doesn't remember the title of the film, although he liked it very much."

Here my attempts:

"Er erinnert sich nicht an den Titel des Filmes, obwohl der ihm sehr gut gefallen hat."
"Er erinnert sich an den Titel des Filmes nicht , obwohl der ihm sehr gut gefallen hat."

Thank you in advance for your help!


----------



## elroy

I would use your first sentence with “er” instead of “der”.


----------



## bearded

Ok with the first sentence, but I would use ''dieser'' instead of ''der'' or ''er''.  In my opinion, with ''dieser'' it's clearer that what he liked is the film and not the title.
_Er erinnert sich nicht an den Titel des Films, obwohl dieser ihm sehr gut gefallen hat._


----------



## Frieder

Or without any ambiguity:

Obwohl ihm der Film gut gefallen hat, erinnert er sich nicht an den Titel.


----------



## scu

Frieder said:


> Or without any ambiguity:
> 
> Obwohl ihm der Film gut gefallen hat, erinnert er sich nicht an den Titel.



I have a doubt.... from what I learnt, in a relative clause right after the subordinate conjunction (_obwohl_), it is required to put the subject of the clause. Isn't it?
Shouldn't I put "_der Film_" right after "_obwohl_"?

"_Obwohl der Film ihm gut gefallen hat, (...)_"


----------



## Hutschi

Eine etwas sanftere Form:
Er kann sich nicht an den Titel des Filmes erinnern, obwohl er ihm gut gefallen hat.

Diese würde ich immer verwenden, außer wenn es um eine objektivierende Beschreibung geht.

Sowohl "Obwohl der Film ihm gut gefallen hat, ..." als auch "Obwohl ihm der Film gut gefallen hat, ..." sind korrekt und idiomatisch.

Beim ersten ist der Schwerpunkt etwas stärker auf "der Film", praktisch ist der Unterschied gering.


----------



## Kajjo

scu said:


> "Er erinnert sich nicht an den Titel des Filmes, obwohl der ihm sehr gut gefallen hat."


The sentence is correct. It sounds a lot more idiomatic with "er" instead of "der", though, as suggested in #2 by Elroy.



scu said:


> it is required to put the subject of the clause. Isn't it?


No, it is not. Frieder's sentence in #4 is not only correct but even highly idiomatic. There is no obligatory place for the subject in subordinate clauses. Forget about this wrong "rule".



Frieder said:


> Obwohl ihm der Film gut gefallen hat, erinnert er sich nicht an den Titel.


 Very idiomatic. My choice, too.


----------



## Demiurg

Frieder said:


> Or without any ambiguity:
> 
> Obwohl ihm der Film gut gefallen hat, erinnert er sich nicht an den Titel.


To make it perfect :

_Obwohl ihm der Film gut gefallen hat, erinnert er sich nicht an dessen Titel._


----------



## JClaudeK

bearded said:


> Ok with the first sentence, but I would use ''dieser'' instead of ''der" .....


Yes, _dieser_ would be fine, too.



Kajjo said:


> There is no obligatory place for the subject in subordinate clauses. Forget about this wrong "rule". []


It isn't a "wrong" rule. It's just not mandatory with pronouns.

If you replace "ihm" by a noun, your 'rule' does (more or less) apply:

_- Obwohl dem Jungen der Film gut gefallen hat, erinnert er sich nicht an den Titel. _ Not really  wrong (IMO), but not very idiomatic/ a bit clumsy* ...
*Edit ... unless you want to stress *heavily* the dative object, but there is no  reason at all to do so here!

_- Obwohl  der Film  dem Jungen gut gefallen hat, erinnert er sich nicht an den Titel. _


----------



## Kajjo

JClaudeK said:


> It isn't a "wrong" rule. It's just not mandatory with pronouns.


Well, maybe we just have different perspectives on the matter of what to call "rule".  I object the notion that there are clear rules in German about this kind of word order. Most so-called rules are not rules in the sense of "grammar laws" but merely rough "rules of thumb" and I believe it is important to emphasise this fundamental principle of the German language.

The only real rules are "verb in second position" for main clause and "verb in last position" for subordinate clauses. Even for these rules several exceptions exists. But language learners should focus on verb position.

In subordinate clauses the subject is NOT mandatorily in second position. This is simply nonsense. Such a grammar rule does not exist at all.

As a rule of thumb or a principle of common preference there is a certain order of members, and this order is sometimes related to the case, sometimes to the kind of member, and sometimes pronouns vs. nouns override the otherwise common preference, though, as you mentioned correctly.



JClaudeK said:


> Not really wrong (IMO), but not very idiomatic/ a bit clumsy


Not at all. Both sentences are grammatically absolutely correct. Period. 

It's all about stress and neutrality. You are right, that the second sentence is more neutral and thus more common. The stress in the first sentence is strongly on "dem Jungen" (e.g. to contrast to "aber die Mädchen" in the next sentence), though, and if this stress is not intended, the second sentence is preferred and more common. 

But again, this is NOT AT ALL about right or wrong, just about stressed or neutral. And again, with pronouns this is differently anyway.


----------



## JClaudeK

Kajjo said:


> Most so-called rules are not rules in the sense of "grammar laws" but merely rough "rules of thumb"


I'd prefer to have some "rules of thumb" when  learning a foreign language than no rules at all (or just two "real rules" as you suggest).


----------



## Kajjo

JClaudeK said:


> I'd prefer to have some "rules of thumb" when learning a foreign language than no rules at all (or just two "real rules" as you suggest).


Well, yes, I agree -- but I would like to know that they are only rules of thumb and avoid trying to argue against native speakers (#5) with rules I wrongly took to be obligatory rules.


----------



## JClaudeK

Kajjo said:


> I would ..... avoid trying to argue against native speakers (#5) with rules I wrongly took to be obligatory rules.


I don't think that scu "tried to argue against native speakers", she was just asking for an explanation.


----------



## scu

Kajjo said:


> Well, yes, I agree -- but I would like to know that they are only rules of thumb and avoid trying to argue against native speakers (#5) with rules I wrongly took to be obligatory rules.



"argue against native speakers"? Are you serious? Hope you quoted the wrong post. If not, I really apologize if my question has been misinterpreted. I didn't want to argue at all, or claiming to be right. I was just asking for clarification, as I had learnt this rule which made me very confused when I read post #4 from @Frieder. How could I argue with a native speaker about their language? 

However, I am really grateful to you all for correcting my wrong assumption. That's it! Really no intention to "argue"



JClaudeK said:


> I don't think that scu "tried to argue against native speakers", she was just asking for an explanation.



Yes, definitely!


----------



## scu

Just one last question... Let's focus on the following sentence:

"Er erinnert sich nicht an den Titel des Filmes."

How does the meaning change if I move "nicht" to the end? Is it simply wrong or does it somehow convey a different nuance?

"Er erinnert sich an den Titel des Filmes nicht."


----------



## JClaudeK

It should rather be "Er erinnert sich nicht a*n* den Titel des Filmes."

according to the rule 


> When _nicht_ is used as a non-contrastive negation word, it's usually placed before prepositional objects:
> _Sie erinnert sich nicht *an* uns._


----------



## Hutschi

scu said:


> Just one last question... Let's focus on the following sentence:
> 
> "Er erinnert sich nicht an den Titel des Filmes."
> 
> How does the meaning change if I move "nicht" to the end? Is it simply wrong or does it somehow convey a different nuance?
> 
> "Er erinnert sich an den Titel des Filmes nicht."



Both are correct.
There is a little nuane in focus (stress).

"Er erinnert sich nicht an den Titel des Filmes." The_ film title_ is in focus. "Er erinnert sich nicht an den Titel des Filmes, aber er weiß genau, wer alles mitwirkte."
"Er erinnert sich  an den Titel des Filmes nicht." Focus is on _not remembering_. Und wenn du ihn noch tausendmal fragst, er erinnert sich an den Titel nicht.

This is not a strict difference, it depends on stress and intonation, as well on context. But as a rule of thumb it might be working.


----------



## elroy

Hutschi said:


> "Er erinnert sich an den Titel des Filmes nicht." Focus is on _not remembering_. Und wenn du ihn noch tausendmal fragst, er erinnert sich an den Titel nicht.


 For this meaning, I would say, “Sich an den Titel des Films erinnern tut er (einfach) (gar) nicht”.


----------



## Hutschi

elroy said:


> For this meaning, I would say, “Sich an den Titel des Films erinnern tut er (einfach) (gar) nicht”.


Possible in coll. language with bad or joking style.


----------



## bearded

elroy said:


> I would say, “Sich an den Titel des Films erinnern tut er (einfach) (gar) nicht”.


Many years ago, I was taught that this construction with 'tun' (analogue to English ''he _does_ not remember'') is southgerman dialectal.  Has it become standard colloquial in the meantime all over Germany?


----------



## Hutschi

No, it hasn't. In southgerman dialects and in the influenced coll. language "tun" is used very often. But it did not become widespread standard in coll. language in the whole area. It is used jokingly (mit Augenzwinkern), or it is bad style.

I had to "unlearn" it when coming to school.


----------



## JClaudeK

Hutschi said:


> Both are correct.
> There is a little nuane in focus (stress).
> "Er erinnert sich nicht an den Titel des Filmes." The_ film title_ is in focus. "Er erinnert sich nicht an den Titel des Filmes, aber er weiß genau, wer alles mitwirkte."*
> "Er erinnert sich an den Titel des Filmes nicht." Focus is on _not remembering_. Und wenn du ihn noch tausendmal fragst, er erinnert sich an den Titel nicht*.**
> 
> "Er erinnert sich an den Titel des Filmes nicht." [?] Focus is on _not remembering_.***



I would never say _"Er erinnert sich an den Titel des Filmes nicht/ er erinnert sich an den Titel nicht.",_ it sounds quite unidiomatic to me.
***Anyway, this sentence's focus is on _not remembering_ (whatever), isn't it?

If you want to focus  on _not remembering *the titel*_, you must say:
_"An den *'*Titel (des Films) erinnert er sich  nicht, (sondern nur an die Handlung/ die mitwirkenden Schauspieler/ ...)._




elroy said:


> I would say, “Sich an den Titel des Films erinnern tut er (einfach) (gar) nicht”.


With "tun" (coll.,  in southern area), I would put it this way:
"An den Titel des Films tut er sich (absolut) nicht erinnern."
or (focus is on _not remembering_)
"Er tut sich (einfach) nicht an den Titel des Films erinnern."


----------



## Hutschi

JClaudeK said:


> I would never say _"Er erinnert sich an den Titel des Filmes nicht.",_ it sounds quite unidiomatic to me.
> *Anyway, this sentence's focus is on _not remembering_, isn't it?
> ...



Yes, it is. The focus is on not remembering.
I do not know exactly where the focus is in the original English sentence.

To me it sounds idiomatic and I would use it.
The main stress is on "erinnert".

The contrast is "er erinnert sich nicht, obwohl er sich erinnern müsste, denn er mag den Film sehr."

It does not mean that I do not use the other form. Both seem to me very idiomatic.


----------



## JClaudeK

Hutschi said:


> Yes, it is. The focus is on not remembering.


That's one more reason to put "nicht" before the prepositional object! Er erinnert sich nicht an .... / Er erinnert sich nicht daran,  ....
(or, if you want to focus: An  _*'*_..... erinnert er sich nicht.)


Would you say: _Er erinnert sich  daran, was er eigentlich tun wollte, _(Edit)_ nicht_. ?  
Neither would I say "_Er erinnert sich an den Titel nicht."_


----------



## Hutschi

JClaudeK said:


> That's one more reason to put "nicht" before the prepositional object! Er erinnert sich nicht an .... / Er erinnert sich nicht daran,  ....
> (or, if you want to focus: An  _*'*_..... erinnert er sich nicht.)
> 
> 
> Would you say: Er erinnert sich  daran, was er eigentlich tun wollte nicht?
> Neither would I say "_Er erinnert sich an den Titel nicht."_


Sollte es kein Tippfehler sein, würde ich das nicht schreiben.


Er erinnert sich  daran, was er eigentlich tun wollte, nicht. - Das würde ich schreiben, aber nur selten, abhängig von Stil und Kontext.
Es tritt eher selten auf.
Es liegt aber nicht am "nicht" allein, sondern an der Vorwärtsreferenz von "daran", die dann einen zweiten offenen Strang (eine zweite offene Valenz) erzeugt, die man erst zum Schluss erkennt.

Gesprochen, mit entsprechender Betonung, hätte ich kein Problem.



Dein Satz, mit ergänztem Komma und als Frage hat eine Bedeutungsänderung von "nicht" zu "nicht wahr".

Er erinnert sich  daran, was er eigentlich tun wollte, nicht? - "Nicht" mit Fragezeichen heißt hier "nicht wahr?" und ändert nicht den Wahrheitswert. (Ich denke eher an einen Tippfehler, eigentlich soll da ein Punkt stehen. Ich vermute, Ebene und Metaebene sind gemischt.)

edit: leicht überarbeitet.


----------



## Kajjo

scu said:


> "argue against native speakers"? Are you serious?


Of course I am. I received it that way. I am glad I misunderstood you.



scu said:


> Is it simply wrong or does it somehow convey a different nuance?


It might not be plain wrong, but surely it is highly non-idiomatic in this example. Only with a lot of stress this might work out.



JClaudeK said:


> _"Er erinnert sich an den Titel des Filmes nicht",_ it sounds quite unidiomatic to me.


I agree, this feels very non-idiomatic.



bearded said:


> is southgerman dialectal. Has it become standard colloquial in the meantime all over Germany?


There are different nuances of the usage of "tun" as kind of auxiliary verb. However, most cases are restricted to Southern dialect and are received as wrong and primitive when used in standard language.

_ Tät ich doch nicht tun! <Bavarian dialect, spoken language>
= Würde ich doch nicht machen! <standard German>_

_ Jens tut viel spielen. <spoken language, dialectal influence on colloquial German>
= Jens spielt viel. <standard German>
_
There are some cases in which an auxiliary "tun" is used to emphasise the main verb in standard German, though. For example, with a main verb infinitive in the pre-field adding a predicate "tun" is used to draw attention to the full verb

 _Wirklich lohnen tut sich das im Endeffekt nicht. <pre-field with full verb>
_


elroy said:


> “Sich an den Titel des Films erinnern tut er (einfach) (gar) nicht”.


Sounds pretty strange, even with a full verb in the pre-field. For my feeling, the "sich" somehow blocks using the auxiliary construction.

_Sich an den Film erinnern tut er gar nicht. <weird, non-idiomatic>
An den Film erinnern tut er sich gar nicht. <better, but still a little bit strange>_


----------



## Hutschi

Hi, is there a way we can exchange sounds here? Because we always speak how something sounds. I am in doubt we mean the same sound.

Kajjo wrote:


> _Wirklich lohnen tut sich das im Endeffekt nicht. <pre-field with full verb>_


This is true. In such cases it is standard.

Ergänzung:
An den _Film er*inn*ern _tut er sich *gar*_ nicht._

Here it sounds natural to me if the main stress is on "*gar*" and a second level stress is on er_*inn*_ern. A third level stress is on "Film".

"tut er sich" build a group and the lenght for all three words together is one tact, it is approximately the same as for "gar".

_*Wirk*lich lohnen/ *tut *sich das/ im *End*ef*fekt*/ *nicht*_
_An den Film/ er*inn*ern/ tut er sich/ *gar*/ nicht._
"/" is a kind of tact separator.


----------



## JClaudeK

Hutschi said:


> Er erinnert sich daran, was er eigentlich tun wollte, nicht? - "Nicht" mit Fragezeichen heißt hier "nicht wahr?"


Richtig, aber
- das ist  eine völlig andere Aussage, die mit dem vorher Gesagten rein gar nichts zu tun hat. !


----------



## Hutschi

Genau. Deshalb vermutete ich einen Schreibfehler in #24.


----------



## JClaudeK

Hutschi said:


> Schreibfehler


Ja, das Komma hatte ich vergessen. Aber das Fragezeichen gehört zu _"Would you say .... ?"._
(Ich hab's korrigiert.)


----------

