# Wann ist am Montag Sprechstunde? (Question structure)



## screamerer

Hallo, gutten Tag!

Im buch des kurses gebt es:

/*Wann ist am Montag Sprechstunde?
*/_*Am Montag ist Sprechstunde von 9 bis 13 Uhr und ...*


_I have no problem with the answer, but I can not understand the structure of the question, as I would've expected it to be: 

*Wann ist Sprechstunde am Montag?

*For I understand that _Sprechstunde_ is the subject there and _am Montag_ is a time adverbial.. .



I appreciate your help with this one.

Danke Schön.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

The predicate-subject sentence bracket is the standard word order:

_Wann ist am Montag gemäß den Angaben, die du dem Telefonbuch entnehmen kannst, Sprechstunde?


_​The longer the bracket is, the likelier are constituents to be placed outside of it.


----------



## screamerer

Schimmelreiter said:


> The predicate-subject sentence bracket is the standard word order:
> 
> _Wann ist am Montag gemäß den Angaben, die du dem Telefonbuch entnehmen kannst, Sprechstunde?
> 
> 
> _​The longer the bracket is, the likelier are constituents to be placed outside of it.



I understood almost nothing from the above. What is a predicate-subject sentence bracket?


Any simpler, more direct answers?

Danke.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

I gave an example.

Two more:

_Wann passieren im Straßenverkehr gewönlich die meisten Unfälle_?
Wo _existieren__ nach heutigem Wissensstand die größten Erdölvorräte?


_PS
As indicated in my first answer, the adverbials may be placed after the subject. In your opening post, you wondered why that option had not been used. Well, it's an option, nothing more.


----------



## screamerer

Schimmelreiter said:


> I gave an example.
> 
> Two more:
> 
> _Wann passieren im Straßenverkehr gewönlich die meisten Unfälle_?
> Wo _existieren__ nach heutigem Wissensstand die größten Erdölvorräte?
> 
> 
> _PS
> As indicated in my first answer, the adverbials may be placed after the subject. In your opening post, you wondered why that option had not been used. Well, it's an option, nothing more.



Thank you, Schimmelreiter, I appreciate your taking the time to post back and further explain things to me.


But so far I have understood that to be an option, *not*, but rather the norm for forming questions; for I read that subjects should be placed closest to verbs.. .

However, and now that I know that placement of adverbials right after the verb and before the subject is possible, *how does it differ from the traditional, English-like, post-subject positioning?*



Viele Dank für Ihre Zeite und Ihre Antwort.


----------



## berndf

Stress. You want to be clear that your question is specifically about Monday (on Tuesday the _Spechstunde _might be at another time).

In most cases, this is the answer to word order questions. As a case inflected language, German has higher degree of flexibility in word order compared to other modern European language and this flexibility is generally used to put emphasis on certain parts of the sentence. Generally, the part moved forward in the sentence compared to neutral word order is the emphasized one.


----------



## screamerer

berndf said:


> Stress. You want to be clear that your question is specifically about Monday (on Tuesday the _Spechstunde _might be at another time).
> 
> In most cases, this is the answer to word order questions. As a case inflected language, German has higher degree of flexibility in word order compared to other modern European language and this flexibility is generally used to put emphasis on certain parts of the sentence. _*Generally, the part moved forward in the sentence compared to neutral word order is the emphasized one*_.




Danke schön.

Can objects be likewise postitioned that way, given we want to emphasize those? For example:

_Paul sucht seine freundin am Samstag._

_*Wann sucht Paul seine freundin? *_ (The usual form)

_*Wann sucht seine freundin Paul?*_  Is this form Ok?



Danke, und auf wiederschreiben.


----------



## berndf

No, the flexibility doesn't go that far. If the subject appears after the verb it has to follow the verb immediately. You could rephrase the question like this: _Seine Freundin sucht Paul wann?_


----------



## Hutschi

> _*Wann sucht seine Freundin Paul?* Is this form Ok?_



I must say it depends. If you do not want to change the meaning, Bernd's explanation is correct. And I think it is what you meant.

Grammatically it is correct. (I corrected the spelling error, too).
The problem is here that it changes the meaning. His girl friend is searching Paul. (_His_ is not well-defined in this sentence. It refers to another person than Paul. - There might be exceptions, for example in a quiz, where the name comes to the end as surprize)


----------



## berndf

Hutschi said:


> The problem is here that it changes the meaning.


The problem is that nominative and accusative happen to be morphologically indistinguishable. It is simply a bad example. Let Paul look for his male rather than his female friend and the confusion disappears:
_Wann sucht Paul seinen Freund?_ 
_Wann sucht seinen Freund Paul? _ (ungrammatical)


----------



## perny

I am confused too. Why would it be ungrammatical? If it were a nominative pronoun subject being moved out of place, then yes for sure, but it is a noun subject.


----------



## screamerer

Hallo,

So, *Wann ist am Montag Sprechstunde?* is correct.

>>What parts of speech can follow the verb, and before the subject, other than adverbials? Can verb prefixes be positioned so?


Danke schön.


----------



## Hutschi

_Wann sucht seinen Freund Paul? - This is indeed ungrammatical - because of the sequence:  but there is an exception. 

Think of a quiz.

The Quiz master asks
__Wann sucht seinen Freund (picking a paper out of a box, reading and continuing) - Paul?

In written language:
__Wann sucht seinen Freund: Paul?
__ 
In this case a backward reference from Paul to "seinen" works. 


_


----------



## berndf

perny said:


> I am confused too. Why would it be ungrammatical? If it were a nominative pronoun subject being moved out of place, then yes for sure, but it is a noun subject.


We are talking about this sentence, right?


berndf said:


> _Wann sucht seinen Freund Paul? _ (ungrammatical)


The syntactical structure is
<question adverb> <finite verb> <accusative object> <subject>

If the subject appears after the finite verb then it has to follow the verb *immediately*. You cannot move the accusative object in between. This rule applies to pronoun or noun subjects alike. I am not aware of any exceptions to that rule.


----------



## Hutschi

Hi, Bernd
what about:
Wann sucht ihn sein Freund? vs. Wann sucht sein Freund ihn?

According to your rule, only the last is correct. But I feel the first is the default. At least it is correct and contradicts your rule.

Should it be: "You cannot move the accusative _noun_ object in between."?

PS: My example "_Wann sucht seinen Freund: Paul?" _is part of pragmatics. Pragmatics "overwrites" grammatical rules sometimes,

Best regards
Bernd


----------



## berndf

screamerer said:


> Hallo,
> 
> So, *Wann ist am Montag Sprechstunde?* is correct.
> 
> >>What parts of speech can follow the verb, and before the subject, other than adverbials? Can verb prefixes be positioned so?
> 
> 
> Danke schön.


Not even adverbial can come between verb and subject. This sentence has a peculiarity: it doesn't contain a subject *at all*. _Sprechstunde _is a predicative noun and not the subject.


----------



## Hutschi

Hi Bernd, you are right, I think. It is a trick I never learned in school.
However I do not understand it.

Sprechstunde ist am Montag. 
Wer oder was ist am Montag? - So Sprechstunde seems to be subject. Is this a predicative noun, too?


----------



## berndf

The case of predicative nouns is nominative (_Er ist der Präesident_). The famous _wer/wen_-test doesn't allow you to distinguish between subject and predicative noun. It only allows you to distinguish between subject and object.


----------



## perny

berndf said:


> We are talking about this sentence, right?
> 
> The syntactical structure is
> <question adverb> <finite verb> <accusative object> <subject>
> 
> If the subject appears after the finite verb then it has to follow the verb *immediately*. You cannot move the accusative object in between. This rule applies to pronoun or noun subjects alike. I am not aware of any exceptions to that rule.



So, this is wrong or does not apply in this case? http://canoo.net/services/OnlineGra...Stellungsfeld/Mittelfeld/Subjekt.html?lang=de

Also, if it is considered strictly a predicative subject/noun, the position away from the beginning of the Mittelfeld seems even more likely: http://www.canoo.net/services/Onlin...lungsfeld/Mittelfeld/Praedikativ.html?lang=de


----------



## berndf

perny said:


> So, this is wrong or does not apply in this case? http://canoo.net/services/OnlineGra...Stellungsfeld/Mittelfeld/Subjekt.html?lang=de
> 
> Also, if it is considered strictly a predicative subject/noun, the position away from the beginning of the Mittelfeld seems even more likely: http://www.canoo.net/services/Onlin...lungsfeld/Mittelfeld/Praedikativ.html?lang=de


I fail spot anything here that contradicts what I said. Can you be more specific?


----------



## perny

berndf said:


> I fail spot anything here that contradicts what I said. Can you be more specific?



The examples they give for the basic word order change indeed only demonstrate the Mittelfeld superiority of the pronouns (closest to the verb at the beginning). However, does that mean this is the only type of exception?

In the second case, the predicative being in last position seems pretty clear... I am not sure how else to clarify that for you given this is what you called it.


----------



## berndf

perny said:


> The examples they give for the basic word order change indeed only demonstrate the Mittelfeld superiority of the pronouns (closest to the verb at the beginning). However, does that mean this is the only type of exception?


The example is for subordinate clause order where the finite verb is at the end. The rule I stated


berndf said:


> If the subject appears after the finite verb then it has to follow the verb *immediately*. You cannot move the accusative object in between. This rule applies to pronoun or noun subjects alike. I am not aware of any exceptions to that rule.


started with _*If* the subject appears *after* the finite verb ..._


----------



## Hutschi

> I am not aware of any exceptions to that rule.




If the object is a pronoun, it may come between verb and subject. 

Wann besucht Roland ihn? (_Roland_ or _ihn_ is emphasized.)
Wann besucht ihn Roland? (default)


----------



## berndf

Hutschi said:


> Wann besucht ihn Roland? (default)


Right. That was the exception (object=pronoun *and *subject=noun). I had a bad felling I was missing something. That's why I phrased it so cautiously (_I am not aware..._).


----------



## Hutschi

I have another exception, professions with articles (regionally also names with articles, in the northern area names with articles are often considered as bad language).

Wann besucht der Schneider den Schuster?
Wann besucht den Schuster der Schneider?


Wann trifft den Hans der Pfeil?
Wann trifft der Pfeil den Hans?


Wann holt den Meier endlich der Teufel?
Wann stach den Professor eine Biene?
---


----------



## Schimmelreiter

berndf said:


> This sentence has a peculiarity: it doesn't contain a subject *at all*. _Sprechstunde _is a predicative noun and not the subject.


I don't think _Sprechstunde _​is a predicative noun. The canoo entry doesn't support your argument that there are subject-less sentences with predicative nouns. The very concept of the predicative noun presupposes the existence of a verb that _couples _the subject and the predicative noun, hence _copula _verb. Unless there's a subject, there's nothing for the predicative noun to _copula__-te _ with.

PS
What's peculiar about _Heute ist Sprechstunde/Feiertag/Weihnachten _is the full-verb role of _sein._


----------



## berndf

Compare the following sentences
_Winter ist_ (_winter exists_) -- Subject=_Winter_; predicate=_ist.
Es ist Winter _(_now it's winter_) -- Subject=<null represented by dummy _es_>; predicate=_ist Winter

Winter sein _is a complex predicate_. _To distinguish between subject and predicative now, you have to ask: Is the now part of the statement you are making or is it the thing the statement is about.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

berndf said:


> Compare the following sentences
> _Winter ist_ (_winter exists_) -- Subject=_Winter_; predicate=_ist.
> Es ist Winter _(_now it's winter_) -- Subject=<null represented by dummy _es_>; predicate=_ist Winter
> 
> Winter sein _is a complex predicate_. _To distinguish between subject and predicative now, you have to ask: Is the now part of the statement you are making or is it the thing the statement is about.


Duden and I  distinguish between

_Gleichsetzungsnominativ_
*Beispiele*



_du bist ein Schuft_
_ihr seid Lügnerinnen_
_das ist die Hauptsache_
_ich bin Paul und das ist meine Schwester Maria_

and

_an einem bestimmten Ort, zu einer bestimmten Zeit stattfinden, vonstattengehen
_*Beispiele*



_die erste Vorlesung ist morgen_
_der Vortrag ist in der Stadthalle_

http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/sein_Verb_Vollverb





So, in





berndf said:


> _Es ist Winter_


contrary to your analysis, i.e.


berndf said:


> Subject=<null represented by dummy _es_>; predicate=_ist Winter_


there's no dummy subject, but _es _purely serves to keep the finite verb in the second position.


Cf. _Jetzt ist Winter. _Here _es_ is not needed since the adverb keeps the finite verb in the second position anyway. _ist Winter _*is not the predicate*: Neither is _ist_ a copula, nor is _Winter _a predicative noun/_Gleichsetzungsnominativ_ (see my Duden quote). In line with Duden, _sein _is roughly equivalent to _stattfinden_: _Jetzt findet Winter statt. _(cf. _Jetzt ist die erste Vorlesung./Jetzt findet die erste Vorlesung statt._) So in _Jetzt ist Winter_, _Winter _is clearly the subject. In sentences like _Es ist Winter _and _Es ist jetzt Winter_, _Winter _is still the subject, and _es _merely keeps the finite verb in the second position.




Cf. the dummy subject in _Es ist sechs Uhr. _The dummy subject continues to be required in _Jetzt ist es sechs Uhr_ whereas there's no _es _in _Jetzt ist Winter. _This shows that _es _is a dummy subject in _Es ist sechs Uhr_ whereas _es _merely keeps the verb in the second position of _Es ist Winter_: As soon as you substitute _jetzt _for _es_, there's no need for it anymore.


----------



## screamerer

Hallo..,



berndf said:


> Not even adverbial can come between verb and subject. This sentence has a peculiarity: it doesn't contain a subject *at all*. _Sprechstunde _is a predicative noun and not the subject.



Danke, *berndf*. (I really don't know why you didn't say that at the beginning when I first asked, when I explicitely said I'd thought of Sprechstunde as subject and *am Montag *as time adverbial. Thank you, regardless, I REALLY appreciate your help ) 

Just to make things clear, What's *am Montag* in:"*Wann ist am Montag Sprechstunde?*"?, you said no adverbials are allowed there - so what's *am montage* then? 



Vielen Dank.


----------



## berndf

screamerer said:


> Hallo..,
> 
> 
> 
> Danke, *berndf*. (I really don't know why you didn't say that at the beginning when I first asked, when I explicitely said I'd thought of Sprechstunde as subject and *am Montag *as time adverbial. Thank you, regardless, I REALLY appreciate your help )
> 
> Just to make things clear, What's *am Montag* in:"*Wann ist am Montag Sprechstunde?*"?, you said no adverbials are allowed there - so what's *am montage* then?
> 
> 
> 
> Vielen Dank.


I have been thinking a bit more about it and I think I overstepped. You can rephrase the sentence in such a way that Sprechstunde is undoubtedly a subject and it is still possible to place the adverbial between verb and subject:_
Wann findet am Montag die Sprechstunde statt?_

@SR: This renders our discussion above irrelevant for this thread, so I won't reply to your last statement, sorry.


----------



## screamerer

Hallo..,

Is it possible *am Montag* there is an adjective? *am Montag Sprechstude* = _Monday clinic_?

 That _predicative noun_ explanation you brought our attentions to quite reasoned with me - it makes sense. There is no subject in that question - it's what we're asking about with _wann_.

For example:
*
Da ist der Bus.

 Da* is the subject. _*ist der Bus*_ is the predicate; _*der Bus*_ is a predicative noun. This structure is simply _inverted form_ (_Der Bus ist da_).
Question form: _*Wo ist der Bus*_

Likewise,
_*
Am Montag Sprechstunde ist von 9:00 bis 13:00*_. 
Inverted form: _*Von 9:00 bis 13:00 ist Am Montag Sprechstunde. Question: Wann ist Am Montag Sprechstunde?

*_Which leaves me only confused about *Am Montag*: it looked like adverb to me, so I kind of excluded the whole explanation - unless, of course, it's functioning there as an adjectival phrase for _Sprestunde_, which makes that sentence as good and right as any. (*Wann ist Am Montag Sprechstunde?* = *When is Monday clinic?*).


I've just finished A1.1 and know very little about adjectives in German. 

*am Montag*, adjective?





Vielen Dank.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

screamerer said:


> *Da ist der Bus.
> 
> Da* is the subject. _*ist der Bus*_ is the predicate; _*der Bus*_ is a predicative noun. This structure is simply _inverted form_ (_Der Bus ist da_).


_der Bus _is the subject, _da ist/ist da _is the predicate.




screamerer said:


> _*Am Montag Sprechstunde ist von 9:00 bis 13:00*_.


_am Montag_ is an adverbial. If used attributively, it is placed after the noun it modifies:

_Die Sprechstunde am Montag ist von 9 (Uhr) bis 13 Uhr.


_If modifying the predicate, it can be placed in these positions (bold-faced constituents are especially emphasised).

_*Am Montag* ist_ _die Sprechstunde von 9 (Uhr) bis 13 Uhr._
_Die Sprechstunde ist am Montag von 9 (Uhr) bis 13 Uhr._
_Die Sprechstunde ist *von* *9 (Uhr) bis 13 Uhr* am Montag._


You might form a compound noun:

_Die Montagssprechstunde ist __von 9 (Uhr) bis 13 Uhr. _(The linking _s_ is debatable.)

You might form an adjective:

_Die montägliche S__prechstunde ist __von 9 (Uhr) bis 13 Uhr._

I advise against both the compound noun and the adjective.


----------



## screamerer

Schimmelreiter said:


> _der Bus _is the subject, _da ist/ist da _is the predicate.



Hallo..,


Ok, Here is another one (not mine):

*Das ist enine Flöte.

"In these sentences eine flöte is in the nominative. Das is the subject. It is a demonstrative and means that"*

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWzre32GeWk (Forward to 3:09)

It's in the nominative case, true, but it's subject of the predicate of the sentence, not the primary subject of the sentence itself. The whole statement is inverted form.




Schimmelreiter said:


> _am Montag_ is an adverbial. If used attributively, it is placed after the noun it modifies:



Hmm., this one is new to me: I never knew adverbials could alter nouns; they modify actions and other adverbs, but nouns? I need to research that.. .



Vielen Dank.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

screamerer said:


> I never knew adverbials could alter nouns


The postponed attributive adverbial exists in English, too: _​The best restaurant in town is over there._


----------



## screamerer

Schimmelreiter said:


> The postponed attributive adverbial exists in English, too: _​The best restaurant in town is over there._



But that's called a noun phrase complement. It's a prepositional phrase that completes the meaning of _resturant_ - It's not describing any action, so it's not functioning as an adverb there.. .




Danke schön.


----------



## screamerer

Hallo, Guten Morgen..


Please bear with me guys, I know much has been said here, but I still have something to add..

I have thought of another perspective for viewing that sentence, and that is it's asking about a subject - a time subject:

_*Wann ist am Montag Sprechstunde?

*_It's asking about the clinic_ time_ (wann) which is _at Monday_ (ist am Montag): *Wann ist am Montag*:* when is at Monday?

Sprechstunde* at the end complements the predicate *sein*: *Sprecstunde sein* - but it's not itself the subject for that question (the fact there is no article before it further supports that, I guess)


Vielen Dank.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

screamerer said:


> _*Wann ist am Montag Sprechstunde?*_


*Wann *interrogative adverb (cf. _Wo/Warum ist am Montag Sprechstunde?_)
*ist *predicate
*am Montag *adverbial
*Sprechstunde *​subject


Same structure as _Wo ist jetzt Herbst?_*







screamerer said:


> it's asking about a subject - a time subject


_wann _is an adverb. Only nouns, pronouns and subject clauses can be the subject.
_




*Auf der Südhalbkugel.
_


----------



## bearded

Schimmelreiter said:


> *Wann *interrogative adverb (cf. _Wo/Warum ist am Montag Sprechstunde?_)
> *ist *predicate
> *am Montag *adverbial
> *Sprechstunde *​subject


  Although I think that you are right in your analysis, screamerer's remark about presence/absence of an article still arises some doubt in my mind.
_Wann ist am Montag Sprechstunde _vs. _wann ist am Montag die Sprechstunde.  _The latter shows more clearly that _Sprechstunde _is the subject.
You mentioned _stattfinden _as an equivalent of _sein _in this case, but I think you can only say _wann findet *die* Sprechstunde statt_, and not _wann findet Sprechstunde statt.  _I am therefore not sure at 100% that in _wann ist... Sprechstunde, _the final word is a real subject.
An analogy between _es ist jetzt sonnig _and _es ist jetzt Sprechstunde _confuses me (I know that you will probably say that _es_ only serves to keep the verb in 2nd position, and nevertheless...).


----------



## Hutschi

_Wann ist am Montag Sprechstunde? - standard style
vs. 
Wann ist am Montag die Sprechstunde? - this sounds colloquially, at least to me.
It should be: __Wann ist die Sprechstunde __am Montag? 
_


----------



## bearded

Alright, Hutschi, _wann ist die Sprechstunde am Montag_ is more standardlike. But this does not solve the doubt I expressed in #38.  The more I read those formulations, the stronger gets my impression that, when the article is missing,  'Sprechstunde' behaves like a separable prefix in a virtual verb 'sprechstundesein' - if one considers the position it takes in various tenses (heute is später als sonst sprechstundegewesen/Sprechstunde gewesen, like - say - Bescheid in bescheidwissen/Bescheid wissen), although I know that such a compound verb cannot exist with 'sein'. And that increases my doubt on the real function of 'Sprechstunde' : more predicate than subject...?


----------



## Hutschi

This is true.
It is a question of grammatical analysis.
Sprechstunde sein - this may be a verb phrase.
"Die Sprechstunde" cannot be used this way, so "die Sprechstunde" is clearly subject.
Die Sprechstunde ist am Montag.

Am Montag ist Sprechstunde. (Here it is fuzzy whether it is subject or part of the predicate.)

But functionally I read "ist" as "findet statt".
In this case "Sprechstunde" is subject and not part of the verb phrase/no predicative..

Compare: Der Montag ist Sprechstunde. (This does not make sense because Monday is a hole day and "Sprechstunde" usually is not an hour or a time but an entity of some time including a doctor and a patient etc.) But here "der Montag" is clearly subject, and Sprechstunde predicative.


----------



## perny

To me it, it is starting to seem like an artefact (*) of question word order with an interrogative subject predicative.

So,

Wann - interrogative (adverb)
ist - verb
am Montag - adverbial
Sprechstunde - subject.

1. This is a predicate with the subject predicative as "Wann", the interrogative adverb.
2. Normal word order in German places the predicative as the very last element in the Mittelfeld, or even part of the sentence bracket.
3. However, here "Wann" is an interrogative, so it cannot move from first position in question word order.

Hence, the subject is the element that has to move as you add more and more elements to the sentence.

(*) or extreme logical consequence, depending on your perspective!


----------



## bearded

@ perny
If I understand your post correctly, you are saying that the normal word order (if it were not interrogative) would be
'Sprechstunde ist am Montag wann' with 'wann' as predicate and 'Sprechstunde' as subject.
That raises some problems, though:
- can an adverb be predicate/predicative?
- why is the article before 'Sprechstunde' missing? Owing to the absence of the article, the function of 'Sprechstunde' becomes uncertain and more similar to that of an adjective (possibly used a sort of prefix), in my view.


----------



## perny

bearded man said:


> @ perny
> If I understand your post correctly, you are saying that the normal word order (if it were not interrogative) would be
> 'Sprechstunde ist am Montag wann' with 'wann' as predicate and 'Sprechstunde' as subject.
> That raises some problems, though:
> - can an adverb be predicate/predicative?
> - why is the article before 'Sprechstunde' missing? Owing to the absence of the article, the function of 'Sprechstunde' becomes uncertain and more similar to that of an adjective (possibly used a sort of prefix), in my view.



Yes, certain adverbs can be predicatives, presumably most of them being locative or temporal.

I still have no idea why the article is missing, unfortunately. If I had to guess, maybe because it could be considered an abstract process? Like Musik?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Sorry, I can't relate to the discussion. 




screamerer said:


> _*Wann ist am Montag Sprechstunde?*_





Schimmelreiter said:


> _Wo ist jetzt Herbst?_


_Wann ist nächstes Jahr Ostern?
__Wann ist montags Feierabend?
Wo ist jetzt Badewetter?_

all follow the same _interrogative adverb - predicate - adverbial - subject _​structure. This is unrelated to the question of the null-article's idiomaticity.


----------



## Gernot Back

As far as sentence structure is concerned


> Wann ist am Montag Sprechstunde?


is comparable to:

_Wann sind Ferien?_
_Es sind (gerade) Ferien!_​ 
Due to the agreement in number (plural), one might be tempted to interpret _Ferien _as the subject of the predicate _sind_, here.
However, I would agree with Bernd here, 


berndf said:


> This sentence has a peculiarity: it doesn't contain a subject *at all*. _Sprechstunde _is a predicative noun and not the subject.


... since number agreement between the nominative and the finite verb is not necessarily an argument for its being the subject and not the predicate noun.


			
				canoo.net said:
			
		

> *Subject and predicative nominative differ in number*
> When the subject and the predicative nominative differ in number, the verb is usually plural:
> ...


 http://www.canoo.net/services/Onlin.../ProblemNum.html?lang=en#Anchor-Subjekt-11481

The _es _in 



_Es sind (gerade) Ferien!
_ 
_Es ist gerade Sprechstunde!_ 

... serves merely as a placeholder to occupy the pre-field of the sentence and is omitted when this field is occupied by an interrogative adverb.



_Wann sind Ferien?
_ 
_Wann ist am Montag Sprechstunde?_ 

On the other hand, I admit that in the case of ...


			
				Rudi Carrell said:
			
		

> _Wann wird'*s* mal wieder richtig Sommer?_


 http://www.songtexte.com/songtext/rudi-carrell/wann-wirds-mal-wieder-richtig-sommer-1bc22190.html
... the zero subject _es_ is indispensable in combination with the predicative noun _Sommer_.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Gernot, you're presupposing that a predicative noun can exist without either subject _(Ich heiße Franz) _or object _(Ich heiße ihn Franz). _​With all due respect, does any grammar book share that presupposition of yours?

I still think that _sein/sind_, in 





Gernot Back said:


> _Wann sind Ferien?_


is roughly equivalent to _stattfinden.






_See  





Schimmelreiter said:


> Duden and I  distinguish between
> 
> _Gleichsetzungsnominativ_
> *Beispiele*
> 
> 
> 
> _du bist ein Schuft_
> _ihr seid Lügnerinnen_
> _das ist die Hauptsache_
> _ich bin Paul und das ist meine Schwester Maria_
> 
> and
> 
> _an einem bestimmten Ort, zu einer bestimmten Zeit stattfinden, vonstattengehen
> _*Beispiele*
> 
> 
> 
> _die erste Vorlesung ist morgen_
> _der Vortrag ist in der Stadthalle_
> 
> http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/sein_Verb_Vollverb


----------



## Gernot Back

Schimmelreiter said:


> Gernot, you're presupposing that a predicative noun can exist without either subject _(Ich heiße Franz) _or object _(Ich heiße ihn Franz). _​With all due respect, does any grammar book share that presupposition of yours?
> 
> I still think that _sein/sind_, in is roughly equivalent to _stattfinden._


I think it's more equivalent to 

_Es ist sechs Uhr._

​, which is not even mentioned by DUDEN.
or


> *1. a.*
> 
> 
> es war (herrschte) Krieg, herrliches Wetter


If _es _is a zero-subject on the surface structure with no correspondent in the deep structure, here, what else should _Sprechstunde_, _Ferien_, [ _Krieg_|_herrliches Wetter_ ] (all clearly in the nominative case) be; other than predicative nouns?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

In





Gernot Back said:


> _Es ist sechs Uhr._


_es _is the subject. (cf. _Es regnet._) It doesn't "drop out of the sentence" when you put _jetzt _into the prefield: 
_Jetzt ist *es *sechs Uhr. _(cf. _Jetzt regnet *es*._)

By contrast, in _Es sind Ferien_, _Ferien _is the subject, so _es_, which is a mere placeholder, isn't needed anymore when you put _jetzt _into the prefield: 
_Jetzt sind Ferien.

_

So, pace Gernot, yours is a comparison of the apples-and-oranges type.


----------



## Gernot Back

Schimmelreiter said:


> In_es _is the subject. (cf. _Es regnet._) It doesn't "drop out of the sentence" when you put _jetzt _into the prefield:
> _Jetzt ist *es *sechs Uhr. _(cf. _Jetzt regnet *es*._)
> 
> By contrast, in _Es sind Ferien_, _Ferien _is the subject, so _es_, which is a mere placeholder, isn't needed anymore when you put _jetzt _into the prefield:
> _Jetzt sind Ferien._


No, '_es_'is the zero-subject here and Ferien is part of the predicate. The fact that you can and even *must *leave 'es' out when you use another phrase in the first position is completely irrelevant. 

In German, we call the _predicate *Satzaussage*. This idea corresponds very much to that of the rheme/comment.

_The _topic _or _theme _is that part of the sentence to which we want to add information (dasjenige worüber wir eine Aussage treffen möchten)

In the case of _Es ist (gerade) Sprechstunde._ ​
There is no topic yet. A new topic is being introduced making the whole proposition the predicate/rheme/Satzaussage.



> The case of expletives  best exemplifies the subject–topic (subject–theme) distinction.  Consider sentences with expletives (meaningless subjects), like:
> 
> (6) It is raining.
> (7) There is some room in this house.
> (8) There are two days in the year in which the day and the night are equal in length.
> In these examples the syntactic subject position (to the left of the  verb) is manned by the meaningless expletive ("it" or "there"), whose  sole purpose is satisfying the Extended Projection Principle, and is nevertheless unnecessary. In these sentences the topic is never the subject, but is determined pragmatically. In (6) the topic is the whole proposition  expressed by the sentence (i.e., the fact that it is raining). In (7)  it is "some room". In (8) it is arguably the equality in length of the  day and night in some day (rather than the day itself).


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic%E2%80%93comment#Definitions

 What about this one:


			
				de.wikipedia.org said:
			
		

> _Es war einmal ein König_ (Rhema). _Der_ (Thema) _hatte drei Töchter_ (Rhema).


 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thema-Rhema-Gliederung#Beispiele

Would you subsume this '_war_' under _stattfinden_?

_*Es fand einmal ein König statt_.​


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Gernot Back said:


> Would you subsume this '_war_' under _stattfinden_?_*Es fand einmal ein König statt_.​


It's an _auxiliary vs. full verb_ issue. In order for _ein König _to be predicative, _war_ must be an auxiliary. It's not. It's a *full verb*, and _ein König _is the subject:

_Es *war *einmal ein König. = Es *existierte* einmal ein König.

_

Also _sind _is a *full verb *in

_Es *sind*​ Ferien.

_and _Ferien _is the subject.


----------



## screamerer

Hallo..,

Can the prepositional phrase *am montag* be regarded as the subject of that sentence?

Now I don't know about German grammar, but in English, prepositinal phrases can function as the subject for a sentence:

*Before breakfast is a good time for swimming.
*
So:*
-Am Montag ist von 2:00 bis 6:00 Sprechstunde.
-Wann ist am Montag Sprechstunde?*



Danke.


----------



## Gernot Back

Schimmelreiter said:


> _Es *war *einmal ein König. = Es *existierte* einmal ein König.
> _Also _sind _is a *full verb *in
> 
> _Es *sind*​ Ferien.
> 
> _and _Ferien _is the subject.


So I guess you would also consider _werden _in


			
				Rudi Carrell said:
			
		

> Wann _wird_'s mal wieder richtig Sommer?


a full verb, like _to come into being_?

The more I think of it, you might be right there!


----------



## perny

I think there may be some confusion between semantics and grammar here.

A (semantic) copula is expressed as a (grammatical) predicative.
A (grammatical) predicative is not always a (semantic) copula.

The ability to form a predicative is strictly a property of certain verbs (_sein, werden, bleiben_, etc). These are, unfortunately, often called "copula verbs", but only in the sense of they CAN form a copula. It restricts no other functions of the verbs, including (other) Vollverb meanings.

So, the sentence structure is the predicative. 

There is only one noun/noun phrase/pronoun which governs the action of the verb (_sein _in the _Vollverb _sense of _stattfinden_): _Sprechstunde_. Therefore, there is a subject and it is _Sprechstunde._



screamerer said:


> Hallo..,
> 
> Can the prepositional phrase *am montag* be regarded as the subject of that sentence?
> 
> Now I don't know about German grammar, but in English, prepositinal phrases can function as the subject for a sentence:
> 
> *Before breakfast is a good time for swimming.
> *
> So:*
> -Am Montag ist von 2:00 bis 6:00 Sprechstunde.
> -Wann ist am Montag Sprechstunde?*
> 
> Danke.



Grammar is different in each language. Grammatical terms/jargon can find equivalences across languages, but the grammar of a language is self-contained.

No, the prepositional phrase cannot be the subject. Even if you did not know that the subject in German has to be a noun/noun phrase/pronoun/clause, it is easy to tell because you can just remove this element or change it without affecting either the core meaning or grammar of the sentence. This means it cannot be the subject or a verb complement.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Gernot Back said:


> So I guess you would also consider _werden _in
> 
> _Wann __wird's mal wieder richtig Sommer?
> _
> a full verb, like _to come into being_?


_Es ist Sommer* ge*worden._ 

Only the non-auxiliary _werden _produces the _ge- _​past participle.


----------



## screamerer

perny said:


> Even if you did not know that the subject in German has to be a noun/noun phrase/pronoun/clause, it is easy to tell because you can just remove this element or change it without affecting either the core meaning or grammar of the sentence. This means it cannot be the subject or a verb complement.



It may look easy to you, but not to me. If I were to come across *Wann ist Sprechstunde*, I would spontaneously only understand it with _*Sprechstunde*_ as a proper noun; the absence of an article before _*Sprechstunde*_ is influential in that regard, so much as to nearly block the interpretation that such an abstract concept is actually itself occuring as a subject in a seemingly rather concrete context.

*W*_*a*_*nn ist die Sprechstunde. *Ok.
*Wann ist Sprechstunde.* grammatically correct, but too abstract and, consequently, disconnected to be used in conversation in reality. However, completely Ok if *Sprechstunde* is simply interpreted as a proper noun.


 So in a way: no, that "core meaning" to which you pointed is, I believe, *not* *un*affected.. .


----------



## perny

screamerer said:


> It may look easy to you, but not to me. If I were to come across *Wann ist Sprechstunde*, I would spontaneously only understand it with _*Sprechstunde*_ as a proper noun; the absence of an article before _*Sprechstunde*_ is influential in that regard, so much as to nearly block the interpretation that such an abstract concept is itself occuring as a subject in a seemingly rather concrete context.
> 
> *W*_*a*_*nn ist die Sprechstunde. *Ok.
> *Wann ist Sprechstunde.* grammatically correct, but too abstract and, consequently, disconnected to be used in a reality context. However, completely Ok if *Sprechstunde* is interpreted as a proper noun.
> 
> So in a way: no, that "core meaning" to which you pointed is, I believe, *not* *un*affected.. .



Except, I was talking about your suggested subject as "Am Montag", the whole topic of that post.


----------



## bearded

perny said:


> Except, I was talking about your suggested subject as "Am Montag", the whole topic of that post.


 It occurs to me that - without 'am' - Montag could well be the subject.  If it were _Montag ist Sprechstunde _or _die Zeit von 11 bis 12 Uhr ist Sprechstunde, _then the opinion that 'Sprechstunde' is a predicate would not appear so absurd any more...This is probably what screamerer thought of when he suggested that 'am Montag' could be the subject.
(am) Montag ist Sprechstunde / Montag(s) ist Sprechstunde : the little s apparently makes the whole difference... (I know it would be 'montags').


----------



## Schimmelreiter

bearded man said:


> It occurs to me that - without 'am' - Montag could well be the subject. If it were _Montag ist Sprechstunde _or _die Zeit von 11 bis 12 Uhr ist Sprechstunde, _then the opinion that 'Sprechstunde' is a predicate would not appear so absurd any more...This is probably what screamerer thought of when he suggested that 'am Montag' could be the subject.
> (am) Montag ist Sprechstunde / Montag(s) ist Sprechstunde : the little s apparently makes the whole difference...


The misleading thing about _Sprechstunde _is that _-stunde _makes believe that it's about _time_. It's not.


_(Am) Montag/Montags ist Sprechstunde.

_is not an equation where there's _time_ on either side of _ist_. If indeed _Sprechstunde _were a time indication, which it isn't, the sentence would be an equation, _(Am) Montag/Montags_ would be the subject, _ist _would be an auxiliary verb, and _ist_ and the predicative noun _Sprechstunde _would together be the predicate.

In actual fact, 
_(Am) Montag/Montags *ist* Sprechstunde. _
means
_The clinic *takes place* on Monday(s)._

So _the clinic/Sprechstunde_ is the subject, the full verb _takes place/ist _is the predicate, and _on Monday(s)/__(am) Montag/montags_ is an adverbial of time.







By contrast,


screamerer said:


> *Before breakfast is a good time for swimming.*


is indeed an equation in which there's _time _on either side of _is_. So _before breakfast _is the subject, and _is_ and the predicative _a good time for swimming _are together the predicate. Unlike perny, I do think grammar's parallel in German here:


_Vor dem Frühstück ist eine gute Zeit fürs Schwimmen._
and
_8 Uhr ist __eine gute Zeit fürs Schwimmen.

_are likewise equations in which there's _time _on either side of _ist. _So _v__or dem Frühstück/__8 Uhr _is the subject, _ist _is an auxiliary verb, and _ist_ and the predicative _eine gute Zeit fürs Schwimmen _are together the predicate.


----------



## Gernot Back

Schimmelreiter said:


> _Es ist Sommer* ge*worden._
> 
> Only the non-auxiliary _werden _produces the _ge- _​past participle.


So what? 

We are not talking about auxiliaries here. We are talking about full verbs vs. copula verbs.

_Ich bin Informatiker *ge*worden._​ 
... and that is clearly the copula verb _werden _here, with _Informatiker _being the predicative noun.

The question is also: Why can't you leave out the _es _here?

_Wann wird'*s* mal wieder richtig Sommer?_
_Wann *wird mal wieder richtig Sommer?_
(_werden _as a copula or as a full verb?)​ 
as opposed to:

_Das wird schon!_
(_werden _used clearly as a full verb)​


----------



## bearded

Sorry, Schimmelreiter, but I find your distinction (and different grammatical analysis) between sentences with 'time on either side' and those with no time on either side, not fully convincing.  Is there a real difference between
_Am Montag ist Sprechstunde (=Klinik)
_and
_Von 8 - 10 Uhr ist Öffnungszeit
?
_Or between _Wann ist Klinik _and _Wann ist Öffnungszeit?
_Can semantics really influence grammar to such an extent?


----------



## Hutschi

Hi, it seems to be a question like in Gödel's famous proposition.
Both methods of interpretation follow a rule, and it is a question of axioms which one is used.
It is very subtile. 
You cannot say what is correct and proof it at the same time.

So it depends on definitions, which are artificial and the assignment to classes may be different depending on point of view.
It is similar to the parallel axiom.

You can define "such a phrase is subject" or "It is predicative" because the other rules do not solve it in the special case. Otherwise we would certainly all agree.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Gernot Back said:


> We are talking about full verbs vs. copula verbs.


Whence the _versus_? _bleiben _and _werden _are full verbs and copula verbs at the same time. 

I have an issue with putting

_Es ist Sommer geworden.
_and
_Ich bin Informatiker geworden.

_into the same kettle of fish.



I think of _subject + copula + predicative _as being an equation in which "equal" things are equated. (Older grammar books use the term _Gleichsetzungsglied im Nominativ.)

_That clearly applies to _Ich bin Informatiker_ _geworden_: There's a *personal* constituent on either side of the copula: Somebody/Something has become somebody/something.


By stark contrast, _es_, in _Es ist Sommer geworden_, is an *impersonal *pronoun/constituent. It's nowhere near an equation. There isn't any "it" that has become summer. The meaning is, _Summer has come._


----------



## Gernot Back

Schimmelreiter said:


> Gernot, you're presupposing that a predicative noun can exist without either subject _(Ich heiße Franz) _or object _(Ich heiße ihn Franz). _​With all due respect, does any grammar book share that presupposition of yours?



Yes, EVALBU (Das elektronische Valenzwörterbuch deutscher Verben) does:

There is no subject (nominative complement), but a predicative complement under the headwords for es ist and es wird.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Gernot Back said:


> Schimmelreiter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gernot, you're presupposing that a predicative noun can exist without either subject _(Ich heiße Franz) or object (Ich heiße ihn Franz). ​With all due respect, does any grammar book share that presupposition of yours?_
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, EVALBU (Das elektronische Valenzwörterbuch deutscher Verben) does:
> 
> There is no subject (nominative complement), but a predicative complement under the headwords for es ist and es wird.
Click to expand...

If _Es ist Sommer _is subject-less, _Jetzt ist Sommer _must be subject-less, too. And so must _Heute ist Ostermontag_​, and all the rest of them. Very interesting. Thank you, Gernot.


----------



## berndf

Full verb uses of _sein _are very rare in German. An example would be _Gott ist_. Note that you cannot reformulate this as _Es ist Gott _and still mean the same thing.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

berndf said:


> Full verb uses of _sein _are very rare in German. An example would be _Gott ist_. Note that you cannot reformulate this as _Es ist Gott _and still mean the same thing.


I took your





berndf said:


> You can rephrase the sentence in such a way that Sprechstunde is undoubtedly a subject and it is still possible to place the adverbial between verb and subject:_
> Wann findet am Montag die Sprechstunde statt?_


to mean that _Sprechstunde _is the subject and _ist ("findet statt")_​ is a full verb in
_
Am Montag ist Sprechstunde.

_
Does that change if you say,

_Es ist Sprechstunde._

following what Gernot wrote?





Gernot Back said:


> There is no subject (nominative complement), but a predicative complement under the headwords for es ist and es wird.






If it does, 

_Jetzt ist Sommer./Jetzt sind Ferien. 

_is _adverbial + full verb + subject 

_whereas 

_Es ist Sommer./Es sind Ferien. 

_is subject-less (_ist/sind _= auxiliary verb [copula], followed by a predicative complement). 


Can that be true?


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> I took yourto mean that _Sprechstunde _is the subject and _ist ("findet statt")_​ is a full verb in


I accept that as a valid argument in favour of the subject-interpretation. I haven't come to a definite conclusion myself.


----------



## Hutschi

berndf said:


> Full verb uses of _sein _are very rare in German. An example would be _Gott ist_. Note that you cannot reformulate this as _Es ist Gott _and still mean the same thing.




I think it depends on intonation.

Es ist *Gott*. = Das ist Gott.
Es *ist* Gott. = Gott existiert/ist. or Das ist wirklich Gott. Depending on context.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

bearded man said:


> Sorry, Schimmelreiter, but I find your distinction (and different grammatical analysis) between sentences with 'time on either side' and those with no time on either side, not fully convincing. Is there a real difference between
> _Am Montag ist Sprechstunde (=Klinik)
> _and
> _Von 8 - 10 Uhr ist Öffnungszeit
> ?
> _Or between _Wann ist Klinik _and _Wann ist Öffnungszeit?
> _Can semantics really influence grammar to such an extent?









bearded man said:


> _Am Montag ist Sprechstunde._


and





bearded man said:


> _Von 8 - 10 Uhr ist Öffnungszeit._


follow the same paradigm since _am Montag _and _von 8 bis 10 Uhr _are both temporal adverbials enquired about with the help of the temporal interrogative _wann_, as you wrote yourself: _Wann ist Sprechstunde/Öffnungszeit? _That makes _Sprechstunde/Öffnungszeit _the respective subject.


By contrast,

_8 Uhr/Vor dem Frühstück ist eine gute Zeit fürs Schwimmen.

_follows the paradigm of
_
Der Morgen ist eine gute Zeit.

_where _8 Uhr/vor dem Frühstück/der Morgen _is the subject of a subject-predicative equation with _time - _rather than a _time adverbial - _on either side of the copula. Consequently, it isn't enquired about by means of _wann _but by _was_: 
_
Was ist eine gute Zeit (fürs Schwimmen)?





_
PS
The opposite paradigm _(Wann ist eine gute Zeit?) _can't be ruled out of course. My point is that in order for the copula paradigm to be possible _(Before breakfast is a good time for swimming)_, there's got to be talk of equal things (time, in a non-adverbial form, in the case at hand) on either side of the copula.


----------



## perny

Which is more natural for you personally, please?

_Ist 8 Uhr eine gute Zeit fürs Schwimmen?_
_Ist eine gute Zeit fürs Schwimmen 8 Uhr?_

And here?

_Ist 8 Uhr heute eine gute Zeit fürs Schwimmen?_
_Ist eine gute Zeit fürs Schwimmen __heute __8 Uhr?_

_Ist __heute __8 Uhr eine gute Zeit fürs Schwimmen?_
_Ist __heute __eine gute Zeit fürs Schwimmen 8 Uhr?_

Finally, if different, what is your most natural way to ask the simplest question from the declaration, "8 Uhr ist eine gute Zeit fürs Schwimmen."?


----------



## screamerer

Hallo..,

Can (generic) nouns in German be used as prober nouns? like when you say in English: *I'm visiting Mother today *(_*Ich besuch heute Mutter*_)?


Danke.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

screamerer said:


> Can (generic) nouns in German be used as prober nouns? like when you say in English: *I'm visiting Mother today *(_*Ich besuch heute Mutter*_)?


Yes, they can. You mentioned the idea of _Sprechstunde _possibly being a proper noun before:





screamerer said:


> If I were to come across *Wann ist Sprechstunde*, I would spontaneously only understand it with _*Sprechstunde*_ as a proper noun; the absence of an article before _*Sprechstunde*_ is influential in that regard, so much as to nearly block the interpretation that such an abstract concept is actually itself occuring as a subject in a seemingly rather concrete context.
> 
> *W*_*a*_*nn ist die Sprechstunde. *Ok.
> *Wann ist Sprechstunde.* grammatically correct, but too abstract and, consequently, disconnected to be used in conversation in reality. However, completely Ok if *Sprechstunde* is simply interpreted as a proper noun.


but I don't think that helps parse the sentences your enquiry is about:


screamerer said:


> *Wann ist am Montag Sprechstunde?
> */_*Am Montag ist Sprechstunde von 9 bis 13 *__*Uhr*__*.*_


Whether or not _Sprechstunde _is a proper noun - which I wouldn't know why it should be - is unrelated to whether it's the subject of your sentences or performs the role of a predicative noun in them.


----------



## Hutschi

It may be a proper noun in: "Wann hast du "Sprechstunde" gesehen?" - (Hypothetical movie)

Wann kommt am Montag "Sprechstunde"?


----------



## screamerer

Schimmelreiter said:


> Yes, they can. You mentioned the idea of Sprechstunde possibly being a proper noun before


I didn't know then, I was just suggesting scenarios for possible parses of that sentence:


screamerer said:


> ..
> *W*_*a*_*nn ist die Sprechstunde. *Ok.
> *Wann ist Sprechstunde.* grammatically correct, but too abstract and, consequently, disconnected to be used in conversation in reality. However, completely Ok if *Sprechstunde* is simply interpreted as a proper noun.




Anyway,


Schimmelreiter said:


> Yes, they can. You mentioned the idea of Sprechstunde possibly being a proper noun before
> ..
> Whether or not Sprechstunde is a proper noun - which I wouldn't know why it should be - is unrelated to whether it's the subject of your sentences or performs the role of a predicative noun in them.



But for me, and according to my understanding, that just about does it: if *Sprechstunde* there is a proper noun, then I have no problem with it being article-less and, consequently, standing as the subject in that question; for much of the fuzz that has been, arose from the fact that that noun had no article preceeding it, causing me and others (Hi, Bearded Man) to feel unsure about it's role as a subject in that question:


screamerer said:


> If I were to come across *Wann ist Sprechstunde*, I would spontaneously only understand it with _*Sprechstunde*_ as a proper noun; the absence of an article before _*Sprechstunde*_ is influential in that regard, so much as to nearly block the interpretation that such an abstract concept is actually itself occuring as a subject in a seemingly rather concrete context.




It crossed my mind as a remote option then and gave it little consideration, but now that I have come to think of it, and with your confirmation of the similarity with English in that generic nouns can stand as proper nouns, I think it makes sense.

Maybe it's the fact that German capitalise all nouns, that made such a difference totally intangible and only worked in the background, resulting in people (that is, People like me ) sometime failing to appreciate it and, as a result, not assuming the right perception when they parse such constructs.. .


----------



## Schimmelreiter

screamerer said:


> But for me, and according to my understanding, that just about does it: if *Sprechstunde* there is a proper noun, then I have no problem with it being article-less and, consequently, standing as the subject in that question; for much of the fuzz that has been, arose from the fact that that noun had no article preceeding it


I don't seem to be able to convince you that the identification of _Sprechstunde _as either the subject or a predicative noun is perfectly unrelated to whether or not it's a proper noun. (It isn't a proper noun in your sentences.)

What's more, the idiomaticity of the null-article is perfectly unrelated to both the question as to whether _Sprechstunde _is a proper noun and the question as to whether it's the subject or a predicative noun. 

Hutschi wrote,





Hutschi said:


> It may be a proper noun in: "Wann hast du "Sprechstunde" gesehen?" - (Hypothetical movie)
> 
> Wann kommt am Montag "Sprechstunde"?


Now, a hypothetical movie or TV series might either be entitled _"S__prechstunde" _or "_Die Sprechstunde". _You might wish to ask the question, _Wann ist "Sprechstunde"? _or _Wann ist "Die Sprechstunde"__?_, respectively, and the answer might be, _"Sprechstunde"/"Die Sprechstunde" ist um 20:15 Uhr. _​That would have no consequences whatsoever for our discussion of how to parse those sentences.





PS
You might well ask, 

_Wann ist heute die Sprechstunde? 
_(fully idiomatic, with a change in meaning compared with _Wann ist heute Sprechstunde?_)

or _Wann ist die heutige Sprechstunde?

_or _Wann ist heute die Sprechstunde von Herrn Dr. Müller?_


and the respective answer might be,

_Heute ist die Sprechstunde von 9 bis 13 Uhr./Die heutige Sprechstunde ist von 9 bis 13 Uhr./Die Sprechstunde von Herrn Dr. Müller ist heute von 9 bis 13 Uhr./Heute ist leider keine Sprechstunde._


The issue of the article is unrelated to our discussion of how to parse those sentences.


----------



## screamerer

Schimmelreiter said:


> I don't seem to be able to convince you that the identification of _Sprechstunde _as either the subject or a predicative noun is perfectly unrelated to whether or not it's a proper noun. (It isn't a proper noun in your sentences.)




It's not like that. I'm neither stubborn nor deffinding any opinions. I'm just a learner and may have failed to understand.. .

Much of the replies here (yours included) have been using grammar terminology and jargon that I have hard time understanding. I'm no grammarian, and I don't come from a related academic background, so I mainly approach these topics based on instinct and feel.. .


Regardless, Please don't feel offended: Your contributions are very, very appreciated.



Schimmelreiter said:


> The issue of the article is unrelated to our discussion of how to parse those sentences.



In absolution it may be, yes, but I encountered that question in a book for teatching German. In one of the chapters, it talked about "Termine", and gave:

_*Wann ist am Montag Sprechstunde.
Am Montag ist Sprechstunde von 9 bis 13 Uhr und..


*_Now those examples the book provide are (I guess they're) supposed to help students manage with their daily life using the German language, that is, real contetxts and actual situations, so I took that into consideration when I tried to approach those constructions for analysis, such that I tried to exclude any parses that would force the interpretation into some *in*applicable meaning or weird sense that would feel unnatural or odd if used in such concrete contexts: Why would I want to talk hypothetical (like in the movie you referred to) to the clinic's secretary? I don't, and the only way to avoid that was, with the absence of that article, to intend _*Sprechstunde*_ as a proper noun.. .


Here's my breif:

*Wann ist am Montag Sprechstunde*:

-_*Wann,*_ subject? *No.
*_*-am Montag*_, adverbial phrase standing as subject? *Appearently no.*
-_*Sprechstunde*_, predicative noun? *I say No.*
-_*Sprechstunde*_, generic noun not preceeded by an article, subject? *Grammatical and correct, but is it befitting of reality where people think of and refer to actual, concrete things? I wouldn't use it.*
*-Sprechstunde*, proper-noun subject? *Seems OK.


*Vielen Dank.


----------



## berndf

No screemer, the question of articles is really unrelated to the question of the status common/proper nouns. There are proper nouns that always take an article, e.g. _der Bundestag_, in some dialects all proper nouns take an article (_Der Hans ist gekommen_) and there are common nouns that don't take an article, usually with non-countable nouns with an unspecified amount, e.g. _ich habe Wasser gefunden_.

I think what you mean here is _abstract _noun and not _proper _noun like in _Liebe macht blind_. Abstract nouns are indeed often (not always) without article. But I don't think this is the case here. The determination status is, I think, partitive as in _ich habe Wasser gefunden_.


----------



## Perseas

screamerer said:


> ...I don't, and the only way to avoid that was, with the absence of that article, to intend _*Sprechstunde*_ as a proper noun.. .


There are several cases where the article (definite or undefinite) can  be ommited; not only with proper or abstract nouns. Many grammarians speak of the "Nullartikel". Here there is some information about this phenomenon: http://cornelia.siteware.ch/grammatik/artikelverw.html
I tend to classify the case we discuss to the "set phrases" (feste Ausdrücke) or perhaps to "Unterrichts- und Studienfächern": _Heute morgen habe ich Deutsch und Mathe._


----------



## Hutschi

Perseas said:


> There are several cases where the article (definite or undefinite) can  be ommited; not only with proper or abstract nouns. Many grammarians speak of the "Nullartikel". Here there is some information about this phenomenon: http://cornelia.siteware.ch/grammatik/artikelverw.html
> I tend to classify the case we discuss to the "set phrases" (feste Ausdrücke) or perhaps to "Unterrichts- und Studienfächern": _Heute morgen habe ich Deutsch und Mathe._



I do not know if grammarians say it is correct, but the analogy is convincing.

"Sprechstunde" is similar to "Mathe" and "Deutsch", indeed. All include time, place and content.
"Stunde" in contrary includes time only (in normal context).


----------



## Schimmelreiter

berndf said:


> The determination status is, I think, partitive as in _ich habe Wasser gefunden_.





Exactly. _Wann ist Sprechstunde? _is like _Wann ist Parteienverkehr?/Wann ist Reparaturannahme? _

Of the infinite total quantity of _Sprechstunde/Parteienverkehr/Reparaturannahme_​, there's one chunk, say, each workday from 10 to 2.


----------

