# Mir wurde keine Zeit gegeben. (Passiv, Pronomen)



## Arcy12

Hallo!
Kann das Führwort das Subjekt des Passives sein?
zum Beispiel:
_
Ich wurde keine Zeit gegeben_

Ich denke dass der Satz seltsam ist, aber es wird gemacht in Englisch.


----------



## manfy

Arcy12 said:


> Hallo!
> Kann das Führwort das Subjekt des Passives sein?
> zum Beispiel:
> _
> Ich wurde keine Zeit gegeben_
> 
> Ich denke dass der Satz seltsam ist, aber es wird gemacht in Englisch.



Nein, das ist nicht möglich. Das Verb 'geben' braucht ein Dativobjekt, ergo richtig: "Mir wurde keine Zeit gegeben."
Dieser Passivsatz hat kein grammatikalisches Subjekt, es kann jedoch ein synthetisches Subjekt eingefügt werden "*Es* wurde mir keine Zeit gegeben."

Im Satz "Ich wurde beschenkt" sieht 'ich' zwar aus wie ein Subjekt, ist jedoch das Akkusativobjekt. Aktiv "Sie beschenkten *mich*."

Ich weiß nicht genau, wie die englische Grammatik dies mit Subjekt im Passivsatz sieht, es sollte aber eigentlich ähnlich sein wie im Deutschen.
I was given no time (by them) -> them is subject, time is direct object, I is indirect object
No time was given to me (by them) -> them is subject, time is direct object, me is indirect object


----------



## Gilkano

> Dieser Passivsatz hat kein grammatikalisches Subjekt, es kann jedoch ein synthetisches Subjekt eingefügt werden "*Es* wurde mir keine Zeit gegeben."
> 
> Im Satz "Ich wurde beschenkt" sieht 'ich' zwar aus wie ein Subjekt, ist jedoch das Akkusativobjekt. Aktiv "Sie beschenkten *mich*."



Sorry to nitpick (again) , but "keine Zeit" _is_ the subject of this sentence (cf. Das Buch wurde mir gegeben. => Mir wurde kein Buch gegeben."). Maybe the "kein" got you confused?

This also applys to "Ich wurde beschenkt." There can be no doubt: "Ich" _is_ the subject of this sentence. That's the whole point - cum grano salis - of the passive: It converts objects into subjects. What you are talking about is _agency_, but that has nothing to do with the _grammatical subject_. The same's true for English grammar, too, so your English examples are also incorrect.


----------



## manfy

Gilkano said:


> Sorry to nitpick (again) , but "keine Zeit" _is_ the subject of this sentence (cf. Das Buch wurde mir gegeben. => Mir wurde kein Buch gegeben."). Maybe the "kein" got you confused?


Hmmm, as Einstein might say: "Das ist alles relativ.", i.e. it depends on your frame of reference!
You can view and analyze passive voice from the standard Subject-Predicate-Object frame of reference *or* you can consider it as a transformation from active voice to its own passive voice frame of reference.
Both views are viable and accurate as long as the indivicual reference system is taken into consideration! 

If "keine Zeit" is the effective subject in "Mir wurde keine Zeit gegeben." then how do you explain "Es wurde mir keine Zeit gegeben." in relation to it? (semantically and syntactically)
I guess what I'm asking is, how can a subject turn into an object without any change in meaning in that sentence?


----------



## perny

English is different.

Active: "They gave (to) me no time."
Passive 1: "No time was given to me."
Passive 2: "I was given no time."

As far as I am aware, that is impossible to construct directly in German with the passive because only the accusative object in the active sentence can become the subject in the passive.

That said, Gilkano is right. The agent, "them/they", is definitely not the subject. That is by definition due to the primary function of the passive - to eliminate or defer the agent in the active voice.


----------



## perny

manfy said:


> If "keine Zeit" is the effective subject in "Mir wurde keine Zeit gegeben." then how do you explain "Es wurde mir keine Zeit gegeben." in relation to it? (semantically and syntactically)
> I guess what I'm asking is, how can a subject turn into an object without any change in meaning in that sentence?



My understanding is the following:

_Keine Zeit_ is the subject of the sentence. This is because the verb will agree with it.

_Mir wurde kein Buch gegeben.
Mir wurden keine Bücher gegeben.
Es wurde mir kein Buch gegeben.
Es wurden mir keine Bücher gegeben.

_This makes Es just a dummy pronoun.

Is this wrong?


----------



## Gilkano

manfy said:


> Hmmm, as Einstein might say: "Das ist alles relativ.", i.e. it depends on your frame of reference!
> You can view and analyze passive voice from the standard Subject-Predicate-Object frame of reference *or* you can consider it as a transformation from active voice to its own passive voice frame of reference.
> Both views are viable and accurate as long as the indivicual reference system is taken into consideration!


Maybe you're right, and maybe your way of looking at things makes more sense (I don't believe that, but it's possible). The point is that this isn't the "classical" way to construct subject and object, the way most learners of a foreign language will be confronted with these terms. Therefore, though it may be sometimes helpful and possible to think about subjects and objects in a "non-classical" way, most Grammar books will adhere to traditional definitions - as far as I know.

Concerning the other questions: I think Perny is right, and I wouldn't know what to add.

Just one additional thought: Reread the second sentence of your original answer!


> Das Verb 'geben' braucht ein Dativobjekt, ergo richtig: "Mir wurde keine Zeit gegeben."



The only Dativobjekt in this sentence can be "mir". And if "mir" is the object and this sentence has no subject, what is "keine Zeit"? Do you think it's an Akkusativobjekt? What about "Mir wurde der Becher gegeben"? Is "der Becher" a grammatical object?


----------



## manfy

perny said:


> This makes Es just a dummy pronoun.
> 
> Is this wrong?



No, you're right. In this case 'es' is just an Expletiv to enable the verb to be in second position. It's not a formal subject as I thought.

Contrary to:
Es wurde mir aus dem Buch vorgelesen.
As expletive it converts into: Mir wurde aus dem Buch vorgelesen.
As subject it converts into: Mir wurde es aus dem Buch vorgelesen.



Gilkano said:


> The only Dativobjekt in this sentence can be "mir". And if "mir" is the object and this sentence has no subject, what is "keine Zeit"? Do you think it's an Akkusativobjekt? What about "Mir wurde der Becher gegeben"? Is "der Becher" a grammatical object?



You're right, I realized that too. And the nominative of "das Buch/der Becher" is usually a dead giveaway for a subject in the traditional grammar system, too.


----------



## Hutschi

Hi,
"geben" does not require a dative object in the sense ot "mandatory". 

Keine Zeit wurde gegeben.

Der Zeitgeber gab keine Zeit, er war kaputt.

---

Transformation to passive usually makes a sentence more fuzzy.

Active: _Er gab mir keine Zeit. _Subject=er, dative object = mir, accussative object = (keine) Zeit.

When I transform it into a passive sentence, the accusative object becomes the subject. The (active) subject is omitted, and the dative object remains.

The actor of the active sentence is omitted this way.  This is important because it may cause misunderstandings, for example in technical documentation.

So you cannot transform passive to active without knowing the context.

Mir wurde keine Zeit gegeben?
Wer gab mir keine Zeit? - unknown.

The subject of passive becomes the object of active.
Keine Zeit wurde mir gegeben. (Wer oder was wurde mir gegeben?
Man gab mir *keine Zeit*. (Wen oder was gab man mir?) - This is not a real transformation from passive to active -  because it adds context. "Man" is a person. In passive it is not clear whether it is a person at all or, maybe a computer program.


---
This may be a problem in technical wrtiting in specifications, or in documentation - as well in German as in English.
Example;
In passive you do not know who makes something, the person or a software program.
_Das Feld wird mit einem Wert gefüllt.
The field will be filled with a value._


----------



## berndf

manfy said:


> No, you're right. In this case 'es' is just an Expletiv to enable the verb to be in second position. It's not a formal subject as I thought.
> 
> Contrary to:
> Es wurde mir aus dem Buch vorgelesen.
> As expletive it converts into: Mir wurde aus dem Buch vorgelesen.
> As subject it converts into: Mir wurde es aus dem Buch vorgelesen.


This is actually a more general feature of German syntax and is not related the passive voice. It also allows subject-verb inversion without violating V2 word order (usually for emphasizing the verb) in ordinary active voice sentences. Example: _Der Hund bellt_ > _Es bellt der Hund_.


----------



## Demiurg

manfy said:


> Im Satz "Ich wurde beschenkt" sieht 'ich' zwar aus wie ein Subjekt, ist jedoch das Akkusativobjekt. Aktiv "Sie beschenkten *mich*."



Man muss hier zwischen syntaktischen Konzepten (Subjekt, Objekt, ...) und semantischen Konzepten (Agens, Patiens, ...) unterscheiden. 

Im Satz "Ich wurde beschenkt" ist "ich" durchaus das (syntaktische) Subjekt aber eben nicht das (semantische) Agens des Satzes.


----------



## berndf

manfy said:


> You're right, I realized that too. And the nominative of "das Buch/der Becher" is usually a dead giveaway for a subject in the traditional grammar system, too.


It is an ordinary subject, not a "dead giveaway". The direct object of the active verb corresponds to the subject of the passive verb. I agree with Demiurg, you seem to have confused _subject _and _agens_. Those are quite distinct concepts. The nomonative case marks the subject, not the agens.


----------



## manfy

berndf said:


> This is actually a more general feature of German syntax and is not related the passive voice. It also allows subject-verb inversion without violating V2 word order (usually for emphasizing the verb) in ordinary active voice sentences. Example: _Der Hund bellt_ > _Es bellt der Hund_.



Yes, and that's where I screwed up in my thought process for my answer. 
I read somewhere on canoo.net "Es <blar blar> is formal subject <blar blar>". Without thinking much and without analysing the example sentence, I prematurely jumped to the conclusion "impersonal 'es' = formal subject".

But my "Es wurde mir aus dem Buch vorgelesen." proves that wrong. In this passive sentence 'es' could be an expletive pronoun *or* it could be an (undefined) subject, 'es' as in it/something: "Es (=etwas/das/dies) wurde mir aus dem Buch vorgelesen".


----------



## berndf

manfy said:


> But my "Es wurde mir aus dem Buch vorgelesen." proves that wrong. In this passive sentence 'es' could be an expletive pronoun *or* it could be an (undefined) subject, 'es' as in it/something: "Es (=etwas/das/dies) wurde mir aus dem Buch vorgelesen".


This sentence is indeed subjectless and _es _is not a forward reference placeholder but a dummy subject. There are a few verbs that have no subject in the active voice because they have no semantic agens, like_ es regnet_. In the passive voice this is a more regular feature. Essentially all transitive verbs with a non-mandatory direct object can transform into a subjectless sentence in the passive voice and therefore need the _es_ dummy subject. This construct allows both, the semantic agens and patiens to remain undefined. In the sentence _Es wird mir vorgelesen_ it is neither specified what is read nor who reads.


----------



## Hutschi

Hi Bernd, it indeed can be a real subject, depending on context. It remains what it was before moving the phrases.

1. Das Gedicht gefiel mir. Roland hat es (object in active sentense) mir aus dem Buch vorgelesen. Es (Subject in passive sentence) wurde mir aus dem Buch vorgelesen.

2. Mir wurde aus dem Buch vorgelesen. (No acc. object.) Es wurde mir aus dem Buch vorgelesen. (subjectless sentence).

Without context you cannot decide. If the sentence is standalone without context, it is like 2. by default.


----------



## berndf

Hutschi said:


> H Bernd, it indeed can be a real subject, depending on context. It remains what it was before moving the phrases.
> 
> 1. Das Gedicht gefiel mir. Roland hat es (object in active sentense) mir aus dem Buch vorgelesen. Es (Subject in passive sentence) wurde mir aus dem Buch vorgelesen.
> 
> 2. Mir wurde aus dem Buch vorgelesen. (No acc. object.) Es wurde mir aus dem Buch vorgelesen. (subjectless sentence).
> 
> Without context you cannot decide. If the sentence is standalone without context, it is like 2. by default.


"Subject" is a purely syntactic concept. It has nothing to do with context.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

berndf said:


> Subject is a syntactic concept. It has nothing to do with context.


Hutschi is right.

If _es_, in 
_Es wurde mir aus dem Buch vorgelesen._ 
refers to a neuter noun (e.g. _das Gedicht_), _es _*is* the subject of the sentence.

By contrast, if _es_ is a placeholder serving the mere purpose of keeping the finite verb _(wurde)_ in the second position, the sentence
_Es wurde mir aus dem Buch vorgelesen._
does *not *have a subject.

So, as Hutschi is right to observe, only context makes it possible to determine whether or not the sentence 
_Es wurde mir aus dem Buch vorgelesen._
possesses a subject.


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> If _es_, in
> _Es wurde mir aus dem Buch vorgelesen._
> refers to a neuter noun (e.g. _das Gedicht_), _es _*is* the subject of the sentence.


Ah, ok. I misunderstood Hutschi's point.

Yes, it is correct, _es _is ambiguous. It can serve as a "real" personal pronoun or it can be a "dummy" pronoun. You need pragmatic context to decide that.

But in both cases it is a subject, either a "real" or a "dummy" one. The important distinction here is between a _subject_ (dummy or real) and a _placeholder for a subject_ that comes after the finite verb. This distinction does not require pragmatic context.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

I don't see why _es _should be called a dummy subject in cases where it doesn't refer to a neuter noun. It serves the same purpose of keeping the finite verb in the second position that it also serves in the following sentence:

_Es fliegt ein Vogel zum Fenster herein.


_Now, does that sentence have two subjects, one dummy, one real? I don't think it does.


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> I don't see why _es _should be called a dummy subject in cases where it doesn't refer to a neuter noun. It serves the same purpose of keeping the finite verb in the second position that it also serves in the following sentence:
> 
> _Es fliegt ein Vogel zum Fenster herein._


This isn't a dummy subject. It is a forward reference placeholder to a later subject. The subject is _ein Vogel_ and to preserve V2 word order you need a placeholder that forward references that subject.

 A dummy subject is used when the subject position is semantically empty, i.e. the agens in active voice or the patiens in passive voice, as in _es regnet_.

I explained this distinction in #10 and #14.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

berndf said:


> A dummy subject is used when the subject position is semantically empty


I'm not getting this.

You're saying that in
_Es wurde mir aus dem Buch vorgelesen. 
_the reason for the existence of _es _is the semantic emptiness of the subject position, true?

Now, let's look at these sentences:
_Mir wurde aus dem Buch vorgelesen.
Aus dem Buch wurde mir vorgelesen.
Vorgelesen wurde mir aus dem Buch.


_What's the _subject position _in the above sentences? Do you call the first position of a main clause the _subject position_? 

If you call the first position of a main clause the _subject position_, it's not empty in the above sentences, but it's certainly not occupied by a subject since there is no subject in those sentences.

If you don't call the first position of a main clause the _subject position_, are you perhaps saying that the absence of a real subject calls for a dummy subject? That can't be so since in none of the above sentences is there a real subject, and a dummy subject is unnecessary notwithstanding.

So why is _es _a _dummy subject _in
_Es wurde mir aus dem Buch vorgelesen.
_when it's obviously unnecessary for there to be a subject (see the above sentences)? Is it not the same kind of placeholder as in 
_Es kommt der Winter.
_where, with the subject in the third position, its one and only purpose is to keep the finite verb in the second position?


----------



## manfy

Right. So we actually have 3 distinctive functions of 'es' in our examples:

1) 'es' as a relative personal pronoun. It can function as a real subject or object (but the meaning could be undefined without context)
_Ich habe eines schönes Gedicht gehört. Es wurde mir aus dem Buch X vorgelesen.
_'Es' refers to 'Gedicht' and it is the formal subject of the second sentence. 
Umstellprobe: Wurde es mir aus dem Buch vorgelesen? -> 'es' cannot be dropped without changing the meaning of the sentence

2) 'es' as a dummy pronoun. It does not function as a subject but as a placeholder or a forward reference to the subject.
_Es kommt der Winter._
'Der Winter' is the subject, 'es' keeps the verb in second position.
Umstellprobe: Kommt der Winter? -> 'es' must be dropped.

_Ich war gestern auf einer Buchmesse. Es wurde aus vielen neuen Büchern vorgelesen.
_'Es' is a dummy pronoun, the second sentence has (in this specific case) no subject. 'Es' simply functions as a syntactic placeholder for V2 sentence. 
Umstellprobe: Wurde aus neuen Büchern vorgelesen? -> 'es' must be dropped.

3) 'es' as a dummy subject
_Es regnet.
_'Es' is the formal subject but doesn't refer to a real person, thing or anything, i.e. 'dummy subject'.
Umstellprobe: Regnet es? -> 'es' cannot be dropped.


----------



## bearded

@ manfy
Why do you call _es _a 'relative' pronoun in your example no.1)?  My idea of a relative pronoun is like _das _or _welches_ in the following example:
_Ein schönes Gedicht, das/welches mir aus dem Buch vorgelesen wurde...
_Except for that definition, I agree on the content of your post.


----------



## manfy

Sorry, I keep mixing up the terminology. Anyways, it's one of the pronouns; maybe it's just a normal personal pronoun 3rd person er/sie/*es* which is referring to 'Gedicht'.


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> So why is _es _a _dummy subject _in
> _Es wurde mir aus dem Buch vorgelesen.
> _when it's obviously unnecessary for there to be a subject (see the above sentences)? Is it not the same kind of placeholder as in
> _Es kommt der Winter.
> _where, with the subject in the third position, its one and only purpose is to keep the finite verb in the second position?


I see your point. There are now five and not three uses of the nominative _es _to be distinguished:

_Es [das Gedicht] ist schön_. -- Ordinary personal pronoun. 
_Es regnet_. -- Dummy subject for verbs without a semantically defined the subject at all. This dummy subject remains obligatory even if the first position is occupied: _Heute regnet es_ and not *_Heute regnet_. 
_Es ist mir kalt. _--  In these  cases the the the subject is also semantically void this is  contingent to the sentence and does not root in the nature of the verb.  In this case, _es _is not obligatory but remains possible, if the first position is used otherwise: _Heute ist mir kalt_ or _Heute ist es mir kalt_ are both possible. 
_Es wurde mir vorgelesen._ -- Looks prima facie like 3. Important difference: _Es_ is only used in first position: _Es wurde mir vorgelesen_ but not *_Heute wurde es mir vorgelesen_. 
_Es bellt der Hund_. -- The sentence contains a subject and a place holder _es _is inserted to allow word orders that would otherwise violate V2 for order. This _es_ (evidently) does not occur, if the first position is used otherwise: _Heute bellt der Hund_ and not *_Heute bellt es der Hund._ 
You argue now that 4. and 5. are essentially the same case whereas I argue that 4. belongs into the same category as 3. because I regard *_Heute wurde es mir vorgelesen_ as valid in principle but blocked in practice because of the ambiguity of _Es wurde mir vorgelesen _Hutschi pointed out, viz. that this sentence can have meanings 1. and 4.


----------

