# deren / derer



## xpmrz

So I saw this explanation of Genitive on Dartmouth : http://www.dartmouth.edu/~german/Grammatik/Nouns/genitive.html



> The demonstrative pronoun, on the other hand, is commonly employed:
> *
> 
> 
> dessen = (of) him/it (masc.)
> derer = (of) her/it (fem.)
> dessen  = (of) it (neut.) derer = (of) them
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Wir danken im Namen derer, die in Nöte geraten sind. We give thanks in the name of those who have come into hardship. Meine Brüder und deren Kinder sind schon angekommen.My brothers and their children have already arrived.
> 
> *


What confused me is the word "derer". As far as I know there are only dessen, deren, dessen, which are demonstrative pronouns as well as relative pronouns relatively corresponding to der, die, das, die(pl) in Genitiv. I can't figure out what kind of word the "derer" belongs to, and also its usage. Why dont we use deren in the former ? 

Need some explanations, thanks


----------



## djweaverbeaver

Hello!*

Derer *is a demonstrative pronoun of _der _in the genitive case, either feminine singular or plural.  *Deren *works as both a demonstrative pronoun and a relative pronoun of der in the genitive case, either feminine or plural.

So in your first sentence, *derer *is used as plural genitive demonstrative pronoun.  _Derjenigen _could also have been used here.  *Derer *is right here and not _deren _because it *refers forward to what follows* ("cataphoric" in linguistics), namely *die in Nöte geraten sind*.  *Deren *can only *refer back to what has preceded *it (ie. "anaphoric").  The preceding statement is the reason why *deren *is correct in your second sentence and not _derer_, because it refers back to *Meine Brüder*.  It also indicates possession (ie. "die Kinder meiner Brüder").

As far as relative pronouns go, *deren *is the preferred form, although some authorities such as Duden allow both *deren *and *derer*.
Die gefallenen Soldaten, *deren *(oder *derer*) wir heute gedenken...
Die Beweise, aufgrund *deren *(oder *derer*)sie verurteilt wurden...

Prescriptivist grammars do not permit *derer *in these two sentences, since to them *derer *can only refer to something to come later in the sentence.  However, descriptive grammars permit both as indicated above.

Just keep in mind that these forms tend to be avoided in speech, but I hope I was able to answer your question clearly and succinctly.


----------



## xpmrz

djweaverbeaver said:


> Hello!*
> 
> Derer *is a demonstrative pronoun of _der _in the genitive case, either feminine singular or plural.  *Deren *works as both a demonstrative pronoun and a relative pronoun of der in the genitive case, either feminine or genitive.
> 
> So in your first sentence, *derer *is used as plural genitive demonstrative pronoun.  _Derjenigen _could also have been used here.  *Derer *is right here and not _deren _because it *refers forward to what follows* ("cataphoric" in linguistics), namely *die in Nöte geraten sind*.  *Deren *can only *refer back to what has preceded *it (ie. "anaphoric").  The preceding statement is the why *deren *is correct in your second sentence and not _derer_, because it refers back to *Meine Brüder*.  It also indicates possession (ie. "die Kinder meiner Brüder").
> 
> As far as relative pronouns go, *deren *is the preferred form, although some authorities such as Duden allow both *deren *and *derer*.
> Die gefallenen Soldaten, *deren *(oder *derer*) wir heute gedenken...
> Die Beweise, aufgrund *deren *(oder *derer*)sie verurteilt wurden...
> 
> Prescriptivist grammars do not permit *derer *in these two sentences, since to them *derer *can only refer to something to come later in the sentence.  However, descriptive grammars permit both as indicated above.
> 
> Just keep in mind that these forms tend to be avoided in speech, but I hope I was able to answer you question clearly and succinctly.



Yes, your answer is absolutely clear. I understood after just reading your explanation, though had searched on Internet for hours before but still not got the idea . Thanks very much.


----------



## berndf

@djweaverbeaver,

Your explanation is fine for analysing the sentences you quoted but in xpmrz's sentences, things are simpler:
In the first sentence, _derer_ is what you would call a _pronoun _in English (i.e. it is syntactically a noun phase in its own right) and _deren _in the second sentence what you would call a _demonstrative adjective_ in English (i.e. it is a determiner/attribute within the noun phrase_ deren Kinder_). Traditional German terminology uses the term _Pronomen_ for both following the old definition of _Nomen _as a generic term for _declinable words _comprising _nouns_ and _adjectives_.



djweaverbeaver said:


> Prescriptivist grammars do not permit *derer *in these two sentences, since to them *derer *can only refer to something to come later in the sentence. However, descriptive grammars permit both as indicated above.


You have to show me that. I'd say _derer_ is only inhibited in attributive use. In pronomial (in the English sence of the word) use, it is always allowed. The question you raised (where both are used in practice) is about the acceptability of _deren_ not of _derer_.


----------



## djweaverbeaver

berndf said:


> @djweaverbeaver,
> 
> Your explanation is fine for analysing the sentences you quoted but in xpmrz's sentences, things are simpler:
> In the first sentence, _derer_ is what you would call a _pronoun _in English (i.e. it is syntactically a noun phase in its own right) and _deren _in the second sentence what you would call a _demonstrative adjective_ in English (i.e. it is a determiner/attribute within the noun phrase_ deren Kinder_). Traditional German terminology uses the term _Pronomen_ for both following the old definition of _Nomen _as a generic term for _declinable words _comprising _nouns_ and _adjectives_.



Why do you think this is simpler?  Some of these term like "a determiner" or "an attribute", although I understand them, are not typical words used in teaching grammar outside of a context of linguistic analysis (at least not in the U.S.).  Also, everything that I've ever seen lists derer and deren as Demonstrativpronomen (check the dictionary), which is why I listed them that way.



> You have to show me that. I'd say _derer_ is only inhibited in attributive use. In pronomial (in the English sence of the word) use, it is always allowed. The question you raised (where both are used in practice) is about the acceptability of _deren_ not of _derer_.



I unfortunately don't have any books around me at the moment, but I know for sure that you look at older versions of the Duden, for instance, derer is not permitted in those sentences.  It is in more recent editions such as now on in their *online dictionary* that they allow for both.  My point was not to say which one was right or wrong but merely to point out where things stand now among German grammarians.  Lastly, the following are two examples of explanations that do not permit *derer *as relative pronouns: *here* and *here*.

Djweaverbeaver


----------



## berndf

djweaverbeaver said:


> Why do you think this is simpler?


Because _attributiv_ and _substantivisch_ use is a morphologically significant distinction anyway which you always have to have "on the radar" when you discuss morphology of pronouns.


djweaverbeaver said:


> derer and deren as Demonstrativpronomen (check the dictionary)


That's what I said. The German term _Pronomen _has a larger scope than English _pronoun_. In English _this_ in _this book _is not a _pronoun_. In German it would be a _Pronomen_.



djweaverbeaver said:


> My point was not to say which one was right or wrong but merely to point out where things stand now among German grammarians.


I understand that. I was just surprised grammarians should hold such a view.





djweaverbeaver said:


> Lastly, the following are two examples of explanations that do not permit *derer *as relative pronouns: *here* and *here*.


Ok. But you accept that this issue only applies to _relative _pronouns, right? And comming back to the question of the OP, his examples were about _demonstrativpronomen_ where the _attributiv _vs. _substrantivisch _distinction is the relevant and also the straight forward (i.e. simpler) one.


----------



## djweaverbeaver

berndf said:


> Ok. But you accept that this issue only applies to _relative _pronouns, right? And comming back to the question of the OP, his examples were about _demonstrativpronomen_ where the _attributiv _vs. _substrantivisch _distinction is the relevant and also the straight forward (i.e. simpler) one.


Yes, and I answered that question, but I was giving him additional information about the similarities and distinctions between them.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

berndf said:


> I was just surprised grammarians should hold such a view.


I find it natural and systematic to reserve _derer_ for cataphoric use. I can only speak for my own usage of course.


----------



## berndf

djweaverbeaver said:


> Yes, and I answered that question...


Not satisfactorily in my mind because the distinction pertinent to the sentences in question weren't even mentioned.

I also contest your claim you made implicitly in the beginning of your explanation and independently of the “prescriptivist grammars” comment that only _deren _can be a relative pronoun.

See also this thread.


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> I find it natural and systematic to reserve _derer_ for cataphoric use.


There is nothing natural about arbitrary choices made by grammarians and not backed up by actual usage.

PS:


Schimmelreiter said:


> I can only speak for my own usage of course.


Then we obviously have incompatible sprachgefühl. _... eine Sache, deren ... _mentioned as "correct" in one of the links in #5 makes my teeth cringe.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

berndf said:


> There is nothing natural about arbitrary choices made by grammarians and not backed up by actual usage.


Once again, Bernd: *I* find it natural, and it's backed up by *my* usage. This forum is *also*​ about opinion.


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> Once again, Bernd: *I* find it natural, and it's backed up by *my* usage. This forum is *also*​ about opinion.


Crossed with the PS to my prevoius post.


----------



## djweaverbeaver

berndf said:


> Not satisfactorily in my mind because the distinction pertinent to the sentences in question weren't even mentioned.
> 
> I also contest your claim you made implicitly in the beginning of your explanation and independently of the “prescriptivist grammars” comment that only _deren _can be a relative pronoun.
> 
> See also this thread.



This is your opinion and xmprz got the explanation that he needed, so that's what matters.  Furthermore, I don't understand the purpose of your inclusion of that link.  I already mentioned that the current explanation given in Duden gives is different for the one they had even a few decades ago.  Just because they now allow for both forms doesn't mean that all German speakers accept these "changes".  Some people will even look down on educated people using some forms in place of others.  This happens in every language, rightly or wrongly, and I clearly stated that some authorities permit both while others keep the distinctions separate.  What people choose to do with that information is up to them.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

djweaverbeaver said:


> This is your opinion and xmprz got the explanation that he needed, so that's what matters. Furthermore, I don't understand the purpose of your inclusion of that link. I already mentioned that the current explanation given in Duden gives is different for the one they had even a few decades ago. Just because they now allow for both forms doesn't mean that all German speakers accept these "changes". Some people will even look down on educated people using some forms in place of others. This happens in every language, rightly or wrongly, and I clearly stated that some authorities permit both while others keep the distinctions separate. What people choose to do with that information is up to them.


I was taught at school that _derer_ was not to be used as a relative pronoun. Logically, I was not the only one. And there must be one or two people besides myself that still remember that _derer_ is not a relative pronoun. Not everybody looks up every word in order to find out about the latest ideas of the makers of Duden.


----------



## berndf

djweaverbeaver said:


> This is your opinion and xmprz got the explanation that he needed, so that's what matters.


Then let me state it more bluntly: He got the wrong explanation.

The cataphoric vs. anaphoric explanation only answers his question, if you mark _die Opfer, dere*r* wir gedenken_ as ungrammatical. As soon as we open the discussion to the *mere possibility* of the above sentence being grammatical, the cataphoric vs. anaphoric criterion ceases to have any explanatory power whatsoever for the given sentences because *_derer Kinder_ remains ungrammatical *independently* of whether _die Opfer, dere*r* wir gedenken_ is grammatical or not.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

berndf said:


> Then let me state it more bluntly: He got the wrong explanation.
> 
> The cataphoric vs. anaphoric explanation only answers his question, if you mark _die Opfer, dere*r* wir gedenken_ as ungrammatical. As soon as we open the discussion to the *mere possibility* of the above sentence being grammatical, the cataphoric vs. anaphoric criterion ceases to have any explanatory power whatsoever for the given sentences because *_derer Kinder_ remains ungrammatical *independently* of whether _die Opfer, dere*r* wir gedenken_ is grammatical or not.


I may be too stupid to get your point. Isn't _deren _anaphoric in _meine Brüder und deren Kinder_ because it refers back to _meine Brüder_? So the statement that _derer_ is cataphoric and, hence, ungrammatical here does have explanatory power, doesn't it?


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> I may be too stupid to get your point. Isn't _deren _anaphoric in _meine Brüder und deren Kinder_ because it refers back to _meine Brüder_? So the statement that _derer_ is cataphoric and, hence, ungrammatical here does have explanatory power, doesn't it?


Ok, let's assume that the cataphoric vs. anaphoric criterion is the only one we have.

As soon as you open the question whether _die Opfer, dere*r* wir gedenken_ is grammatical or not, the question whether _derer Kinder _is grammatical or not arises at the same time. As we all know, *_derer Kinder _remains ungrammatical, if _die Opfer, dere*r* wir gedenken_ be deemed grammatical. Hence, we need an independent explanation why *_derer Kinder _is ungrammatical.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

berndf said:


> Ok, let's assume that the cataphoric vs. anaphoric criterion is the only one we have.
> 
> As soon as you open the question whether _die Opfer, dere*r* wir gedenken_ is grammatical or not, the question whether _derer Kinder _is grammatical or not arises at the same time. As we all know, *_derer Kinder _remains ungrammatical, if _die Opfer, dere*r* wir gedenken_ be deemed grammatical. Hence, we need an independent explanation why *_derer Kinder _is ungrammatical.



Got it. Those that open the question whether _Opfer, derer wir gedenken_ is grammatical need an independent explanation. Duden, for one. Serves them right, why do they open that question in the first place?

Yes, I'm being sarcastic. A bit.


PS
Speaking of explanations, what explanation is there for _derer_ reaching beyond its original demonstrative role, other than that that new use has existed for some time and is now *described*? Modern grammar describes more than it explains.


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> Serves them right, why do they open that question in the first place?


Because a grammatical explanation that fails to explain actual usage, is simply wrong. This is independ of whether or not we allow grammar to be prescriptive.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

berndf said:


> Because a grammatical explanation that fails to explain actual usage, is simply wrong. This is independ of whether or not we allow grammar to be prescriptive.


Grammarians might say: 
(1) The anaphoric adjectival and substantival use of _deren_ is grammatical. 
(2) The anaphoric adjectival use of _derer_ is ungrammatical. 
(3) The anaphoric substantival use of _derer_, while not considered ungrammatical anymore, is advised against. _derer_ should be reserved for cataphoric, i.e. demonstrative, use.

Grammarians don't do that. They hardly ever give advice as to what's good and what's not so good. There are still some people out there that would be grateful for such advice.


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> There are still some people out there that would be grateful for such advice.


You summarized my point quite well. Advice should be based on accurate description what actual usage and that resolves the conflict between descriptive and prescriptive grammar.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

So there should be a distinction between *three* categories:
(1) grammatical and good
(2) grammatical but not so good
(3) ungrammatical


----------



## djweaverbeaver

berndf said:


> You summarized my point quite well. Advice should be based on accurate description what actual usage and that resolves the conflict between descriptive and prescriptive grammar.



Basically, you just said that grammar should be descriptive, not prescriptive.  That's your opinion and you're fully entitled to it.  However, this hardly resolves any conflicts given that there are obviously people who disagree with you on this point.


----------



## berndf

djweaverbeaver said:


> Basically, you just said that grammar should be descriptive, not prescriptive.  That's your opinion and you're fully entitled to it.  However, this hardly resolves any conflicts given that there are obviously people who disagree with you on this point.


I said that a prescriptive analysis that is so limited in scope that it doesn't even allow comparison of actual and prescribed usage is a very poor one; poor *as *a prescriptive analysis. I you read the two links you posted carefully, you will find that the authors do make the distinction between _attributiv_ vs. _alleinstehend _(2nd link) or _possessiv _vs._substantivisch_ (1st link).


----------



## eidschun

To: djweaverbeaver and berndf

Thank you for the interesting discussion.  I'm not sure that I follow your reasoning, or that there are ever really reasons for common, acceptable usage.  However, I'm very interested in learning what is common, acceptable usage.

So, in reading your various posts, I would like to know if the following is common, acceptable usage, please, and I will distinguish between "demonstrative pronoun" and "demonstrative adjective":

(1) "Derer" as a demonstrative pronoun in the genitive plural, used to refer to something that follows, e.g., "Wir danken im Namen derer, die in Nöte geraten sind."

(2) "Deren" as a demonstrative adjective in the genitive singular (von die) or genitive plural, used to refer to something mentioned previously, e.g., "Meine Brüder und deren Kinder sind schon angekommen."

(3) "Deren" as a relative pronoun in the genitive plural, e.g., "Der Fluß, deren Ufer ich so schön finde."

Secondly, I would like to know if the following is generally considered to be UNACCEPTABLE usage:

(4) "Derer" as a demonstrative pronoun, used to refer to something mentioned previously, although I can't think of an example.

(5) "Derer" as a demonstrative adjective.

(6) "Derer" as a relative pronoun.

(7) "Deren" as a demonstrative adjective, used to refer to something that follows, although I can't think of an example.

In addition, I would like to understand the following sentence:

"Sie haben die Kurztexte auf Seite 105 gelesen. Welche der folgenden Sätze stimmen mit deren Inhalt nicht überein?"

What does "deren" refer to?  The "Kurztexte"?  Is deren a demonstrative adjective?  But "deren" follows "mit" and whatever follows "mit" is usually in the dative case, right?  But "deren" is in the genitive plural, no?  So, what do we have here?  A genitive plural demonstrative adjective whose case is invariable, even when it comes after "mit"?

Thank you.


----------



## Pouriya

djweaverbeaver said:


> *Derer *is a demonstrative pronoun of _der _in the genitive case, either feminine singular or plural. *Deren *works as both a demonstrative pronoun and a relative pronoun of der in the genitive case, either feminine or plural.


Hello,
So for masculine/neuter nouns, dessen is the form we use whether we want to refer to a previously mentioned noun or *to refer to a clause we want to introduce later.*
Die Punkzahl dessen, der gewonnen hat ist 100. (The score of the one who won is 100.)
Is that right?


----------



## berndf

Pouriya said:


> Is that right?


Yes.


----------



## Gernot Back

Pouriya said:


> So for masculine/neuter nouns, dessen is the form we use whether we want to refer to a previously mentioned noun or *to refer to a clause we want to introduce later.*
> Die Punkzahl dessen, der gewonnen hat ist 100.


In cataphoric usage, I would prefer _desjenigen,_ especially when referring to a person.

_Die Punkzahl *desjenigen*, der gewonnen hat, ist 100.

_​


----------



## bearded

eidschun said:


> 3) "Deren" as a relative pronoun in the genitive plural, e.g., "Der Fluß, deren Ufer ich so schön finde."


I would say ''dessen Ufer''. The relative pronoun refers to 'Fluss'', which is masculine singular (..the banks of which/whose banks).
(please note the current spelling 'Fluss' because the u is short (no more ß in this case, after the _Rechtschreibreform_).


----------



## JClaudeK

Gernot Back said:


> In cataphoric usage, I would prefer _desjenigen,_ especially when referring to a person.
> _Die Punkzahl *desjenigen*, der gewonnen hat, ist 100._



See also Canoonet:


> *Function of derjenige*
> The demonstrative pronoun and determiner _derjenige, dasjenige, diejenige_ indicates something that is further determined by a following relative clause:
> _Er ist derjenige (Mann), der angerufen hat.
> Diejenigen (Bücher), die ihr nicht mehr lesen wollt, könnt ihr verschenken._
> ..........


----------



## Schlabberlatz

eidschun said:


> What does "deren" refer to? The "Kurztexte"?


Yes.


eidschun said:


> So, what do we have here?


A _noun phrase_ in the dative. "deren" is just an attribute (see #4) in that phrase.


Pouriya said:


> Punkzahl


Punk*t*zahl


----------

