# sich lassen (grammatical explanation)



## Mozzerfan99

Right, so lassen constructions are very weird and confusing... But I get most of the lassen constructions, just not the _sich lassen_ which almost acts as a passive.
For example, _das lässt sich nicht ändern_. I don't got what word there is actually doing the _ändern_? Like, grammatically, how does this make sense...

In the other lassen constructions, you might say _wir lassen die Tür öffnen_. I get that, because I have had it explained that like this...
_Wir lassen [jemanden] die Tür öffnen. _So this construction is weird in that it has two objects... _Jemanden _is the object of _lassen_, while _die Tür_ is the object or _öffnen_. The _jemanden_ is just implied, and therefore grammatically it could equally be ... 
_Wir lassen die Tür [etwas] öffnen_, meaning we let the door open something.
The point I am trying to get across here, is that in these constructions there is clearly something doing each verb. With _wir lassen die Tür öffnen_, although jemanden (albeit not actually there, but implied) is the object of lassen, it is in fact the de fact subject of _öffnen, _in that it is the one doing the verb.
But I don't get how you can have the same explanation of _sich lassen_?
As it is reflexive, there is no 'space' between the verb and the _sich_ to put anything else. So...
_Das lässt [etwas] sich nicht ändern_ doesn't sound right to me, because it is the _lassen _that is reflexive...
And also, why is it only in the third person...

Tl;dr - what word in the sentence (implied and missed out or actually there) is the one doing the infinitive in these weird _sich lassen _faux-passive constructions, and why is it only in the third person? 

I know that was long and rambling, but it is something that confuses me so thanks in advance for any help!


----------



## berndf

Mozzerfan99 said:


> Right, so lassen constructions are very weird and confusing...


It is neither weird nor confusing only because you haven't fully understood it yet.

German grammar distinguishes conceptually between an_ Objekt der Sache_ (object representing a thing) and _Objekt der Person_ (object representing a person). There is a small number of verbs where the _Objekt der Sache_ and the _Objekt der Person_ are both accusative so that these verbs have two direct objects. _Lassen_ is one of these verbs. Although they share the same grammatical case the two objects are still functionally distinguished.

_Sich lassen_ is a reflexive verb. Reflexive verbs are best seen as separate from transitive verbs, like intransitive and transitive verbs in English should be seen as separate verbs (e.g., _I ran around the corner_ vs. _I ran the company_). Reflexive verbs have no conceptual distinction between agent and patient. Your question "I don't got what word there is actually doing the _ändern_?" therefore does not apply. Reflexive verbs can conveniently be used, if a speaker does not want to specify and agent. In English you can use the passive voice to achieve the same: _Das lässt sich nicht ändern = That can't be changed. _In German you have that possibility as well. You could equally say _Das kann nicht geändert werden_. The two different ways of expressing an undefined agent allow you to express slight nuances that are difficult to express in languages that don't have reflexive verbs (like English) but the basic meaning is the same. An example for such a nuance would be: (1) _Die Tür lässt sich nicht öffnen_ vs. (2) _Die Tür kann nicht geöffnet werden_ (both meaning _The door can't be opened_). Formulation (1) implies that the door can't be opened because of a technical issue with the door itself (e.g. a jammed lock) while (2) has no such implications. You might, e.g., not be able to open the door because you can't reach it.


----------



## Mozzerfan99

Thanks for the response.
I get what you mean about it not being related to the non-reflexive version... 
So because (e.g. ich wasche mich) the subject and reflexive object (and therefore the agent and patient) are the same, you say they are not conceptually no different... But I don't see how this means it can be used to get a similar meaning to the passive? Why does it mean you don't have to specify an agent? I know the agent and patient are the same, but surely there still is an agent (es lässt sich, es and sich I get are basically the same but 'es' is still the agent).
Thanks again...
And I meant it is weird and confusing to native English speakers as we don't have a similar concept in English...


----------



## berndf

Mozzerfan99 said:


> So because (e.g. ich wasche mich) the subject and reflexive object (and therefore the agent and patient) are the same, you say they are not conceptually no different...


Yes, here it gets tricky. There is a difference between a intrinsically reflexive verb and a transitive verb where agent and patient are incidentally equal. In English only the latter type exists. Sometimes both types of reflexive verbs exist side by side. Example: _(1) Er hat sich verletzt_ vs. _(2) Er hat sich selbst verletzt_. Version two means _He hurt himself_ while version (1) lingers somewhere in no man's land in between _He hurt himself_ and _He was hurt.
_
See also this older thread.


----------



## Mozzerfan99

See, I kind of get that, but I just don't see how it links into the whole _sich lassen_ question.
_Die Tür lässt sich öffnen_. 
So, first off, the sense I get, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that because _sich lassen _ is a true reflexive verb, not just being used reflexively, the translation is the door _was opened _rather than the door _opened itself. _But like I said I still don't understand what the actual agent is then in this sentence... Because the door itself clearly can't be the agent, and you're saying that _die Tür_ and _sich _are effectively the same... That's what's confusing me here, which parts of the sentence perform each role (agent, patient, etc...)?

Thanks for the help this far


----------



## Kajjo

_Die Tür lässt sich nicht öffnen._

There is no agent in this case and such a construction is used in order to avoid specifying an agent. Don't Look for an agent. There isn't one. 

As in passive sentences, you can add a prepositional object that the reader understands as kind of an agent, but grammatically is not the agent and semantically might or might not be a proper agent. It might also just be a toll used to perform the action or any other additional information.

_Die Tür lässt sich von dir nicht öffnen.
Die Tür lässt sich ohne Schlüssel nicht öffnen.
_
Compare with passive voice with modal verbs:
_
Die Tür kann nicht geöffnet werden. <no agent, no active version possible>
_
Understanding the semantics, you could form a new sentence with added agent:
_
Die Tür lässt sich von niemandem öffnen.
Niemand/Keiner kann die Tür öffnen.
_
In passive voice a prepositional object can be used to add a semantic agent:
_
Die Tür kann von dir nicht geöffnet werden. <"du" as agent, active rephrasing possible>
Du kannst die Tür nicht öffnen.
_


----------



## Mozzerfan99

Ok, thanks.
But the one thing I still don't get is _why_ there isn't an agent... I understand that the _Tür_ and the _sich _are basically the same etc but still don't understand why this means there is no agent...


----------



## berndf

Mozzerfan99 said:


> and you're saying that _die Tür_ and _sich _are effectively the same...


You shouldn't try interpret to interpret the reflexive pronoun as a separate phrase. It is in effect just a modifier of the verb and does not represent anything.


Mozzerfan99 said:


> But the one thing I still don't get is _why_ there isn't an agent...


Why should there be? The passive voice example _The door can't be opened _should show you that a sentence doesn't need an agent to be meaningful.


----------



## Mozzerfan99

Well usually the subject is understood as the agent... Is it then the case that all reflexive constructions don't have an agent? 
Like the reason passive constructions don't is because passive constructions are like that, so is it the case that all reflexive constructions are like that?


----------



## Mozzerfan99

berndf said:


> You shouldn't try interpret to interpret the reflexive pronoun as a separate phrase. It is in effect just a modifier of the verb and does not represent anything.



Ok that does help, but still the question remains why there is no agent... Like surely there must be an actual reason, is it just because it is reflexive? What is it about that sentence that means _die Tür_ is the patient rather than agent, and is there any kind of logic behind it?


----------



## Kajjo

Mozzerfan99 said:


> so is it the case that all reflexive constructions are like that?


No, _lassen_ is a very special case.

Most reflexive verbs have a subject and agent.

_Ich ärgere mich.
Sie beeilt sich.
Du freust dich.
Er wäscht sich.
Wir helfen uns gegenseitig.
Ich habe mich verschluckt.
Ich mache mir Sorgen._


----------



## Mozzerfan99

Kajjo said:


> No, _lassen_ is a very special case.



So is it basically just _sich lassen_ (a true reflexive verb, not just being used reflexively) for no real reason? And where does 



berndf said:


> Reflexive verbs have no conceptual distinction between agent and patient.



come into it?


----------



## Kajjo

Mozzerfan99 said:


> What is it about that sentence that means _die Tür_ is the patient rather than agent, and is there any kind of logic behind it?


I think you are still blocked by trying to get all reflexive construction inside the same concept. Please accept that _lassen_ is very special.

Try a reflexive sentence without _lassen_.:

_Die Tür öffnet sich.
_
Here _Tür_ is subject and agent. The verb is reflexive.

_Ich lasse die Tür öffnen._

Here the subject and agent to _lassen_ is "ich". There is no subject or agent to _öffnen_.

_Die Tür lässt sich nicht öffnen._

Here _Tür_ is subject to _lassen_, but semantically not the agent.


----------



## berndf

Mozzerfan99 said:


> so is it the case that all reflexive constructions are like that?


Difficult to say. The concepts of agent and patient are often meaningless; the subject is just the object or person the verb applies to without specifying it either as agent or patient. _Agent _and _patient _often aren't categories we think of when using reflexive verbs.

There are cases where the subject of a reflexive verb have a strong patient connotation and sentences express for all intents and purposes the same as the passive voice. But not so much in German. French uses this extensively: _La bouillabaisse se mange avec de la rouille_.


----------



## Kajjo

Mozzerfan99 said:


> Where does "Reflexive verbs have no conceptual distinction between agent and patient." come into it?



_Ich ärgere mich.
Sie beeilt sich.
Du freust dich._

Think about it yourself. The grammatical subject could be said to be _both_ agent and patient or you could say the subject is _neither _agent nor patient -- and the sentence just a statement without need of agent or patient at all.

I think you should drop the need to assign an agent or patient. Sentences need grammatical subjects, but they don't need agents or patients.


----------



## Mozzerfan99

Kajjo said:


> Think about it yourself. The grammatical subject is both agent and patient or you could say the subject uis neither agent nor patient but the sentence just a statement.



I do get it, I just don't get how it fits into the actual question as such...



Kajjo said:


> I think you should drop the need to assign an agent or patient. Sentences need grammatical subjects, but they don't need agents or patients.



Ok, so you don't _need_ to assign an agent or patient, but with _die Tür lässt sich öffnen_, there clearly is a patient in _Tür..._ And so is it basically that with _sich lassen_ the subject is understood as the patient of the infinitive verb simply because it is? Simply because that is how it works with _sich lassen_?


----------



## berndf

Mozzerfan99 said:


> Ok, so you don't _need_ to assign an agent or patient, but with _die Tür lässt sich öffnen_, there clearly is a patient in _Tür..._


It is not so clear. You could translate _Die Tür lässt sich nicht öffnen_ also as _The door resists being opened_. And all of the sudden it gets an agent connotation. The sentence structure is really easiest to understand if you don't ask about agents and patents. _Sich nicht öffnen lassen_ expresses a property that applies to _die Tür_. That is all you need to know.


----------



## Mozzerfan99

Ok thanks, but clearly it does make a difference whether it is the agent or patient? 
So ok fair enough _sich lassen_ just works that way, but is there a difference then between 
_Die Tür lässt sich nicht öffnen _(the door doesn't allow itself to be opened)
And... _die Tür lässt sich nicht öffnen _(but when it means the door doesn't open) 
Are they both grammatically identical?


----------



## berndf

Mozzerfan99 said:


> Ok thanks, but clearly it does make a difference whether it is the agent or patient?


In sentence describing actions, agent and patent roles are usually assigned naturally (though there probably are exceptions, I just can't think of one). But in sentences describing states, as this one does, these roles are often meaningless. Take the sentence _The door is red_. What reason do we have to assign an agent or patient role _the door_? I can't see any utility in it.


----------



## Mozzerfan99

Why does this one describe a state? _Öffnen_ is certainly an action... And _lassen_ I wold have thought was too...


----------



## berndf

Mozzerfan99 said:


> Why does this one describe a state? _Öffnen_ is certainly an action... And _lassen_ I wold have thought was too...


_Lassen _yes, _sich lassen_ no.
If it helps, translate _Die Tür lässt sich nicht öffnen_ with _The door isn't "openable"_ meaning _The door is jammed_.


----------



## Kajjo

Mozzerfan99 said:


> Why does this one describe a state?


If you mean this question seriously, then you haven't understood the meaning.

_The door cannot be opened.
The door is blocked._

These are descriptions of states or properties. No actions involved.


----------



## Mozzerfan99

Ok, thanks, I think I see what you mean.

So basically _sich lassen_ doesn't refer to an action and so there is no agent or patient full stop? I understand it with _die Tür lässt sich nicht öffnen_... Like there is no agent in the whole thing, it simply won't open, there is nobody doing this, right?
But then the one thing that I don't get is how would you more directly translate it? What definition would you give for _sich lassen _on its own?


----------



## berndf

Mozzerfan99 said:


> But then the one thing that I don't get is how would you more directly translate it? What definition would you give for _sich lassen _on its own?


You don't. It involves a concept that doesn't exist in English. To understand the concepts of a language it is counterproductive to always seek a translation. Sometimes you have to set the concepts of your own language aside and look at the language you are studying in its own context alone. This is even true for so closely related languages as English and German.

The translations Kajjo offered in #22 are the closest possible.


----------



## Mozzerfan99

Ok thanks, that makes sense. 
So basically the subject of _sich lassen_ cannot be verbed, if you see what I mean?
_Das lässt sich nicht ändern - _that cannot be changed. 
_Das Fahrrad lässt sich nicht reparieren - _the bike cannot be fixed.

So final things then...
Why is it only ever seemingly in the third person?

And is there any specific word for _sich lassen_? Like the difference between the above sentences, and something like _das Fahrrad ist rot_ is that the above sentences work with another verb beyond the main verb _sich lassen _in the first, _sein_ in the other one... 

And as for my previous point, could the non reflexive verb _lassen_ work reflexively like this: 
_Die Tür lässt [jemanden] sich nicht öffnen - _it is therefore grammatically different from the sentence using _sich lassen_ because here the transitive verb is simply being used reflexively, with a meaning of something more like _the door doesn't let anyone open it?_


----------



## Kajjo

Mozzerfan99 said:


> Die Tür lässt [jemanden] sich nicht öffnen


_Die Tür lässt sich von niemandem öffnen.
_


Mozzerfan99 said:


> Why is it only ever seemingly in the third person?


No, other grammatical persons are possible, too:

_Ich lasse mich nicht unter Druck setzen.
Er lässt sich nichts sagen.
Du lässt dir nichts gefallen.
Wir lassen uns nicht helfen._


----------



## bearded

berndf said:


> _Sich lassen_ is a reflexive verb.


I hope that a 'heretical' opinion is allowed.
In the sentence _Die Tür lässt sich (nicht) öffnen _it seems to me that there is no reflexive verb 'sich lassen'.  A reflexive verb should have a complete meaning by itself, in my view (like _ich wasche mich), _whereas _die Tür lässt sich _(without _öffnen_) does not mean anything.
I think that in _die Tür lässt sich öffnen _the actual reflexive verb is _sich öffnen:  was lässt die Tür/lässt die Tür nicht (tun)? Sich öffnen._
I'm sure there will be objections _ohne Ende._


----------



## Hutschi

"Die Tür lässt [jemanden] sich nicht öffnen." (I suppose this is not meant as proper sentence but as a kind of explanation.)
I think, nevertheless, it is wrong in German.
It had to be: "Die Tür lässt [jemanden] [sie] nicht öffnen." = "Die Tür lässt [von jemanden] [sich] nicht öffnen." which is equivalent to "Die Tür lässt sich nicht öffnen."

This is, as Kajjo explained, "_Die Tür lässt sich von niemandem öffnen."
It is equivalent to "Die Tür lässt sich nicht von jemandem öffnen." 
So "Die Tür lässt sich nicht öffnen" has an implicit agent "jemand", indeed. (Jemand, wer auch immer, kann sie nicht öffnen. - "Wer auch immer" is included to let the phrase be equivalent to "niemand".)

Duden | lassen | Rechtschreibung, Bedeutung, Definition, Synonyme, Herkunft In Duden this is the meaning Duden | lassen | Rechtschreibung, Bedeutung, Definition, Synonyme, Herkunft_

zulassen, erlauben; dulden; nicht an etwas hindern
Edit:

Bearded Man wrote: "no reflexive verb 'sich lassen'"
Indeed the verb phrase is "sich öffnen lassen."


----------



## berndf

bearded man said:


> I hope that a 'heretical' opinion is allowed.


Of course.


bearded man said:


> In the sentence _Die Tür lässt sich (nicht) öffnen _it seems to me that there is no reflexive verb 'sich lassen'.  A reflexive verb should have a complete meaning by itself, in my view (like _ich wasche mich), _whereas _die Tür lässt sich _(without _öffnen_) does not mean anything.


You are right, it is probably more accurate to analyse, as Hutschi did, the entire modal verb phrase _sich <main verb> lassen_ as reflexive and not the verb _lassen_ in isolation. I thought of raising the issue but then decided it was an unnecessary complication.


bearded man said:


> I think that in _die Tür lässt sich öffnen _the actual reflexive verb is _sich öffnen:  was lässt die Tür/lässt die Tür nicht (tun)? Sich öffnen._


I don't think that would be an appropriate analysis either. There is a reflexive verb _sich öffnen_ but that has, as you certainly know, a somewhat different meaning than it has in _sich öffnen lassen_.


----------



## Mozzerfan99

Ok so is there a difference between:
The door cannot be opened (die Tür lässt sich nicht öffnen)
And... 
The door won't let anyone open it (using _lassen_ reflexively, but not using _sich öffnen lassen_ per se)


----------



## Hutschi

Usually I do not see a difference as long as no machine is involved, opening it automatically.
As long as it cannot be opened and nobody can open it is the same.


----------



## Gernot Back

Mozzerfan99 said:


> Ok so is there a difference between:
> The door cannot be opened (die Tür lässt sich nicht öffnen)
> And...
> The door won't let anyone open it (using _lassen_ reflexively, but not using _sich öffnen lassen_ per se)


That reminds me of Charles Fillmore's deep case theory:
General Linguistics


----------

