# Gehen Sie hier geradeaus durch das Brandenburger Tor...



## screamerer

Hallo, Guten Tag, .

I know there is a "_*geradeaus gehen"*_, but in the following statement for giving direction, what is the verbial idea?

_*Gehen Sie hier geradeaus durch das Brandenburger Tor, ..*_


Danke.


----------



## rjadhav163

Hi

It seems pretty straightforward to me, unless there is some hidden or profound meaning in some context. I think the person giving instructions, simply wants to say: "Go straight through the Brandenburger gate."


----------



## Schlabberlatz

rjadhav163 said:


> "Go straight through the Brandenburger gate."


Yes, that’s it. The "verbial idea" is "durch etw. gehen":
"Gehen Sie hier durch das Brandenburger Tor, …"
"Gehen Sie hier geradeaus das Brandenburger Tor, …"


----------



## screamerer

rjadhav163 said:


> Hi
> 
> It seems pretty straightforward to me, unless there is some hidden or profound meaning in some context. I think the person giving instructions, simply wants to say: "Go straight through the Brandenburger gate."


Hello, rjadhav163.

It's not the meaning I'm asking about. I want to know what the verbial idea there is.. .

Thanks.


----------



## screamerer

Schlabberlatz said:


> Yes, that’s it. The "verbial idea" is "durch etw. gehen":
> "Gehen Sie hier durch das Brandenburger Tor, …"
> "Gehen Sie hier geradeaus das Brandenburger Tor, …"


Hallo. The statement I'm interested in is:
"*Gehen Sie hier geradeaus durch das Brandenburger Tor*"

And by the way, I checked with a couple of renowned dictionaries, and no such entry as
_*durch etw. gehen*_, only _*durch etw. durchgehen*_


----------



## Kajjo

I don't understand your "verbal idea". Is this a new concept to irritate learners of German?

The verb is "gehen". That's it. For me at least. Of course, "gehen" can be used with a lot of prepositions and additions like durch / über / zu / hinein / in Kurven / geradeaus und so weiter. 

The main idea is:

_Gehen Sie durch das Brandenburger Tor.
Gehen Sie (hier <pointing to something>) durch das Brandenburger Tor.
Gehen Sie (geradeaus <pointing the direction> durch das Brandenburger Tor.
_
I do not see any change of idea by adding more details.


----------



## ger4

screamerer said:


> And by the way, I checked with a couple of renowned dictionaries, and no such entry as
> _*durch etw. gehen*_, only _*durch etw. durchgehen*_


_*Durch etwas gehen =*_ _*durch etwas (hin)durchgehen*_. The whole sentence could also have been expressed like this: "_Gehen Sie hier geradeaus durch das Brandenburger Tor __hindurch_" - Edit: Adding_ hindurch _isn't necessary, though, and I'm surprised that _durch etw. gehen_ isn't listed in some dictionaries. It sounds quite idiomatic to me.


----------



## Kajjo

Why should every possible preposition be listed? In larger dictionaries this is helpful, but not essential.

in, über, durch, unter, durch, von, zu... almost endless list....


----------



## berndf

screamerer said:


> It's not the meaning I'm asking about. I want to know what the verbial idea there is.. .


If you say _durch das Brandenburger Tor durchgehen_ then this is itself the action you want to describe.

Your partial sentence is probably a way description that has in itself nothing to do with the _Brandenburger Tor_ nor with _durchgehen_. It might be heard, if you are in _Straße des 17. Juni_ and you ask someone for the way to _Pariser Platz_ and the person you asked points to the _Brandenburger Tor _and explains your have to walk straight through it in order to get to_ Pariser Platz_. The action that is topic of the sentence is _walking to Pariser Platz_ and not _walking through Brandenburger Tor_. That in order to do so you have to walk straight through _Brandenburger Tor_ is an additional qualification but not the action itself. The "verbal idea", as you called it, still is _walking to Pariser Platz_ and not _walking through Brandenburger Tor. _And that's why you say _gehen _and not _durchgehen_.


----------



## screamerer

Kajjo said:


> Is this a new concept to irritate learners of German?


It sure irritates you, for one.


----------



## screamerer

berndf said:


> If you say _durch das Brandenburger Tor durchgehen_ then this is itself the action you want to describe.
> 
> Your partial sentence is probably a way description that has in itself nothing to do with the _Brandenburger Tor_ nor with _durchgehen_. It might be heard, if you are in _Straße des 17. Juni_ and you ask someone for the way to _Pariser Platz_ and the person you asked points to the _Brandenburger Tor _and explains your have to walk straight through it in order to get to_ Pariser Platz_. The action that is topic of the sentence is _walking to Pariser Platz_ and not _walking through Brandenburger Tor_. That in order to do so you have to walk straight through _Brandenburger Tor_ is an additional qualification but not the action itself. The "verbal idea", as you called it, still is _walking to Pariser Platz_ and not _walking through Brandenburger Tor._



Hallo. I came across the term "verbal idea" as I was reading online: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~german/Grammatik/WordOrder/WordOrder.html

It refers to the predicate _*(the verb and, if any, its complements)*_. I thought it was understandable what a verbal idea was, but it seems it's not a widespread description - had I known better, I would've not used it. I apologize if I caused any confusion.

The statement is in the book from which we study at Goethe's. It's giving direction. And yes, you're right, it's
a partial sentence. Here's the continuation:

*Gehen Sie hier geradeaus durch das Brandenburger Tor, Unter den Linden entlang, und dann die dritte Querstraße, das ist die Friedrichstraße.

*
My confusion with the underlined part is that I'd already known _*geradeaus*_ is used as a complement to the verb *gehen* (*geradeaus gehen*) and as such is positioned at the end. Seeing as how it is used in this sentence, I became unsure which was complement and which was normal adjunct in "_geradeaus_ _durch das Brandenburger Tor"._

So I asked what the verbal idea (the verb and its complement) was.

_*geradeaus durch das Brandenburger Tor gehen*_, or
_*durch das Brandenburger Tor gehen*_, or simply
*gehen* alone with no complement, hence *geradeaus durch das Brandenburger Tor* was simply a sequence of normal adverbs.

?

Danke.


----------



## Kajjo

Yes, I admit, such terms irritate me. They are useless. Thanks for explaining the "verbal idea". I regard the linked page as quite disturbing. Verbal idea, verbal concept, verbal complement... what is this multitude of similar terms and difficult definitions supposed to help?

There are some parts of a predicate that cannot be omitted, otherwise the remaining sentence is not valid or has a complete different meaning, not just some information missing. This distinction is useful.

However, here you know and understand what the sentence means. You know the "idea" automatically, I bet: Describing the route.

Here is another site, describing grammar quite accurate:

http://www.canoo.net/services/Onlin...gebunden-frei.html?MenuId=Sentence420&lang=en


----------



## berndf

screamerer said:


> Gehen Sie hier geradeaus durch das Brandenburger Tor, Unter den Linden entlang, und dann die dritte Querstraße, das ist die Friedrichstraße.


That is exactly the context I expected in my explanation above. And the concept of "verbal idea" makes sense.

Is your question answered now?


----------



## berndf

Kajjo said:


> They are useless.


On the contrary. They are key to understanding the difference between _durch XXX gehen_ and _durch xxx durchgehen_.


Kajjo said:


> I regard the linked page as quite disturbing. Verbal idea, verbal concept, verbal complement... what is this multitude of similar terms and difficult definitions supposed to help?


This is the terminology that comes with Tesnière's _valency theory_. The terminology is borrowed from traditional French terminology where objects and predicatives are collectively known as _complément de verbe _and Tesnière extends the concept of a _complément _to the subject which in his systematic is also a valency of the verb.

It is not so, that valency theory does away with traditional grammar but it provides a supplementary view on verbal syntax the is useful to explain certain peculiarities.


----------



## screamerer

berndf said:


> That is exactly the context I expected in my explanation above. And the concept of "verbal idea" makes sense.
> 
> Is your question answered now?



Hmm.. No?  (and please don't be mad, berndf)

I still don't know whether it's:
*geradeaus durch das Brandenburger Tor gehen*, or
_*durch das Brandenburger Tor gehen*_, or simply
*gehen* alone with no complement, hence *geradeaus durch das Brandenburger Tor* is simply a sequence of normal adverbs.


----------



## berndf

screamerer said:


> *gehen* alone with no complement, hence *geradeaus durch das Brandenburger Tor* is simply a sequence of normal adverbs.


That's what I explained:


berndf said:


> That in order to do so you have to walk straight through _Brandenburger Tor_ is an *additional qualification* but not the action itself.



PS:


screamerer said:


> please don't be mad


I am not. Those things are difficult and it sometimes takes a while to get them straight.


----------



## screamerer

Crystal Clear. 


Vielen Dank.


----------



## stormwatch

From someone that has met this term „geradeaus” when learning German, I think that the „verbal idea” of it is that you go through the Brandemburger Tor and *you continue to go straight ahead* on the Linden Strasse until it crosses with the Friedrichstrasse.


----------



## Kajjo

@berndf: Thanks for link and your opinion. It might indeed be interesting from a formal and linguistic point of view. Personally, I believe it to be disturbing for learners. Too much concepts and terms, that do not make a real difference in everyday speaking.

Valency is a quite interesting formal linguistic concept, though, but a "verbal idea" (and that was the primary topic) is still nonsense for me, i.e. not a good way to explain predicates. Anyway, maybe I simply do not understand the concept -- but I lived pretty good several decades without it.


----------



## bearded

To me, the 'verbal idea' is quite clear, but the 'adverbial idea' is a bit less clear. I refer to the word 'geradeaus'.  In the gerade part there are no problems for a foreigner, but why 'aus'?  If compared to English 'straight on/straight ahead', geradeaus is way less clear.  Can 'aus' ever mean on or ahead?. Thank you for explaining.


----------



## Frieder

I think that _ahead _already means _geradeaus _where the _a_ part is _aus/ab_:

*a*head : gerade*aus
a*stern : achter*aus
a*thwart : quer*ab*

always defining a direction (the adverbial idea).


----------



## berndf

bearded man said:


> To me, the 'verbal idea' is quite clear, but the 'adverbial idea' is a bit less clear. I refer to the word 'geradeaus'. In the gerade part there are no problems for a foreigner, but why 'aus'? If compared to English 'straight on/straight ahead', geradeaus is way less clear. Can 'aus' ever mean on or ahead?. Thank you for explaining.


The literal translation is _straight away_. This is an old meaning of aus that is today confined to combined adverbs like _hinaus, heraus, geradeaus, voraus_ or, the in Frieder mentioned, _achteraus_.


----------



## bearded

Thank you for your explanation, but it seems to me that in 'heraus/hinaus' the aus part means 'nach draußen'', whereas in 'geradeaus' this meaning does not exist. If 'aus' means away, I can understand it, but I think that a comparison with her/hinaus is not so clear.


----------



## berndf

Depends on which meaning of _hinaus _you talking. If you are talk about the meaning of _Er geht in den Garten hinaus _then you are right but not if you are talking about the _hinaus_ of _Das Restaurant ist auf Wochen hinaus ausgebucht_.


----------



## bearded

berndf said:


> Depends on which meaning of _hinaus _you talking. If you are talk about the meaning of _Er geht in den Garten hinaus _then you are right but not if you are talking about the _hinaus_ of _Das Restaurant ist auf Wochen hinaus ausgebucht_.


Very clear, berndf. thank you. But what about _heraus_? Would you say that it originally means ''away from there''? Or ''away towards here''?


----------



## screamerer

Hallo, ..

In the text which I asked about:

"_Gehen Sie hier geradeaus durch das Brandenburger Tor, Unter den Linden entlang, und dann die dritte Querstraße, das ist die Friedrichstraße_*"*

How may sentences are there?


----------



## Frieder

There's two of them: 
"_[Gehen Sie hier geradeaus durch das Brandenburger Tor, Unter den Linden entlang, und dann die dritte Querstraße.][ Das ist die Friedrichstraße.]_*"*


----------



## screamerer

Frieder said:


> There's two of them:
> "_[Gehen Sie hier geradeaus durch das Brandenburger Tor, Unter den Linden entlang, und dann die dritte Querstraße.][ Das ist die Friedrichstraße.]_*"*


Hallo. But please note that there actually is a comma after _Querstraße_, not a period. Does that alter the answer?


Danke.


----------



## Frieder

Actually it's two main _clauses _within one _sentence_. Consequently you may convert the two clauses into sentences and exchange the comma for a period.


----------

