# mir



## Magg

Hello all,

This time the lesson is about modal verbs, but the little word "mir" bothers me and I don´t know what´s its role in the following.

*Herr Kölmel, können Sie mal zu mir ins Büro kommen?
Ich glaube, ich muss mir einen anderen Job suchen.*

Thanks

Forgot!
What´s *Aussendienst* (mit beta)?
It isn´t in the Osola dictionary.

Cheers


----------



## Ralf

Magg said:
			
		

> Hello all,
> 
> This time the lesson is about modal verbs, but the little word "mir" bothers me and I don´t know what´s its role in the following.
> 
> *Herr Kölmel, können Sie mal zu mir ins Büro kommen?*
> *Ich glaube, ich muss mir einen anderen Job suchen.*
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Forgot!
> What´s *Aussendienst* (mit beta)?
> It isn´t in the Osola dictionary.
> 
> Cheers


Hallo Magg,

"mir" is the dative of "ich" - Komm zu mir = come to me; Sage mir bitte ...=Tell me please; Das Buch gehört mir = (literal) The book belongs to me.

The question related to your first example is: "*Zu wem* soll Herr Kölmel kommen" - answer: *zu mir*

The second example is a bit more complicated. I think I have to find *me* another job. Okay, it sounds a bit odd, but it is to demonstrate the literal translation. By the way, the "mir" or 'me', respectively, isn't inevitably necessary. The related question is "*Wem* suche ich einen anderen Job?" The interrogative "Wem" requires the dative, therefore the answe is "mir". Another example: Ich hole *mir* ein Glas Wasser = I'll get *me* a glass of water. However, this is different from the question "Für wen?", which requires the accusative: Für wen suche ich einen anderen Job? Ich suche einen anderen Job für mich. = I look for another job for me. Für wen hole ich ein Glas Wasser? Ich hole ein Glas Wasser für mich. = I'll get a glass of water for me.

I hope I put it somehow understandable.

Außendienst means as much as (external) customer service or field service. "Unsere Außendienstmitarbeiter werden Sie zu Hause besuchen" = Our outdoor staff/representatives will have a visit to your home.

Ralf


----------



## mnzrob

Magg said:
			
		

> Hello all,
> 
> This time the lesson is about modal verbs, but the little word "mir" bothers me and I don´t know what´s its role in the following.
> 
> *Herr Kölmel, können Sie mal zu mir ins Büro kommen?*
> *Ich glaube, ich muss mir einen anderen Job suchen.*
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Forgot!
> What´s *Aussendienst* (mit beta)?
> It isn´t in the Osola dictionary.
> 
> Cheers


 
Mir answers the question "who". Who's office? Who needs to find a new job? Here's a direct translation of the above:
Mr. Kölmel, could you come into MY office.
I think i need to find another job FOR MYSELF.

Is this what you're asking, Magg, or did I misunderstand?

Aussendienst is work done outside the office, or place of work. For example, when a doctor makes a house call, that would be considered Aussendienst.

Rob


----------



## Magg

Thanks both for your help. I think I understook you. 

If I´m not wrong "mir" may show possession as in the first sentence or act as an indirect object "Sage mir bitte".

Oops!
I forgot to ask you about its order in the sentence. Considering I´m with modal verbs I guess it goes after the modal in afirmative sentences by looking at the example. Is it that way?

Magg


----------



## Whodunit

"Mir" in the second example is reflexive:

ich ... mir:
Ich kaufe mir ein Buch.
(literal) I buy me a book.
English: I'm buying a book for MYSELF.

du ... dir:
Du kaufst dir ein Buch.
(literal) You buy you a book.
English: You're buying a book for YOURSELF.

er ... sich:
Er kauft sich ein Buch.
(literal) He buys him a book.
English: He's buying a book for HIMSELF.

sie ... sich
Sie kauft sich ein Buch.
(literal) She buys her a book.
English: She's buying a book for HERSELF.

es (das Kind) ... sich:
Es kauft sich ein Buch.
(literal) It buys it a book.
English: It's buying a book for ITSELF.

wir ... uns:
Wir kaufen uns ein Buch.
(literal) We buy us a book.
English: We're buying a book for OURSELVES.

ihr ... euch:
Ihr kauft euch ein Buch.
(literal) You buy you a book.
English: You're buying a book for YOURSELVES.

sie/Sie ... sich
Sie kaufen sich ein Buch.
(literal) They/You buy them/you a book.
English: They're/You're buying a book for THEMSELVES/YOURSELF.


----------



## Whodunit

Magg said:
			
		

> I forgot to ask you about its order in the sentence. Considering I´m with modal verbs I guess it goes after the modal in afirmative sentences by looking at the example. Is it that way?
> 
> Magg



Actually, yes, but I'm not a teacher. You should wait for learners, since they studied the rules of the German grammar.


----------



## Magg

whodunit said:
			
		

> Actually, yes, but I'm not a teacher. You should wait for learners, since they studied the rules of the German grammar.


Hi W.

What a helping post!
As for the order, you wrote easy simple clauses where I can see the reflexive pronouns come after the verb. Do they take the same place if there is a frequency adverb, for instance?

Another thing. You said they were reflexive prons. as in the second sentence.
Considering the first one, the other prons. you gave remain the same when it comes to the dative?

Uhm... did I explain myself?


----------



## gaer

Ralf said:
			
		

> I hope I put it somehow understandable  .
> I hope I somehow put it understandably  .


Your explanation was exellent. In addition, the use of "me" in place of "myself", in English, is particularly common in the south, in the US. It's either informal, slang or sub-standard, but it's very understandable.

Frankly, I think you understand English grammar better than I do!

Gaer


----------



## gaer

whodunit said:
			
		

> es (das Kind) ... sich:
> Es kauft sich ein Buch.
> (literal) It buys it a book.
> English: It's buying a book for ITSELF.
> English: He's (she's) buying a book for HIMSELF/HERSELF.


I can't tell you why, but in such a sentence, it sounds very weird to refer to a child as "it", although "It's buying a book for ITSELF" is grammatically correct.

The rest of your exaplanation was excellent!   

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> I can't tell you why, but in such a sentence, it sounds very weird to refer to a child as "it", although "It's buying a book for ITSELF" is grammatically correct.
> 
> The rest of your exaplanation was excellent!
> 
> Gaer



Well, I know in English the word "child" is either male or female, but not neuter, unlike in German. But could you please suggest a word that refers to neuter things that can go and buy something? In German a child is neuter, so IT can go and buy something, but in German HE would buy or SHE (a little lass/girl) would do it.


----------



## gaer

whodunit said:
			
		

> Well, I know in English the word "child" is either male or female, but not neuter, unlike in German. But could you please suggest a word that refers to neuter things that can go and buy something?


I'm sorry. I don't understand your question. 

I can't think of a single instance in which "it" would be used to indicate any human being old enough to buy something. You have to remember that it is quite shocking, for instance, for us to see the pronoun "es" referring to "das Mädchen" or "das Weib". Call it "culture shock". It's one of the few words that still stops me when I'm reading, forcing me to reread a German sentence. We are conditioned to refer to human beings as "he" or "she". Normally, to use "it" to refer to a human being is incredibly insulting. The only exception I can think of right now is for an infant, a baby. There "it" is used.


> In German a child is neuter, so IT can go and buy something, but in German HE would buy or SHE (a little lass/girl) would do it.


If I understand your point, there is a fundamental difference between German and English here having to do with grammar and tradition, not logic.

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> I'm sorry. I don't understand your question.



Yes, you did, because you explained my point very well in the next paragraph:



> I can't think of a single instance in which "it" would be used to indicate any human being old enough to buy something. You have to remember that it is quite shocking, for instance, for us to see the pronoun "es" referring to "das Mädchen" or "das Weib". Call it "culture shock". It's one of the few words that still stops me when I'm reading, forcing me to reread a German sentence. We are conditioned to refer to human beings as "he" or "she". Normally, to use "it" to refer to a human being is incredibly insulting. The only exception I can think of right now is for an infant, a baby. There "it" is used.



What about animals? I still don't know if one can say "it" or "he" to a male dog. I don't know what gender you use in English to indicate animals, or rather pets.



> If I understand your point, there is a fundamental difference between German and English here having to do with grammar and tradition, not logic.



Yes. That was what I wanted to say. But it also looks strange to me if I see a window, for example, is neuter in English.


----------



## enzodava

This is really an attempt to systematize what seems like a rather disjointed discussion of cases and the functions. Some of it repeats and some adds and contextualizes. I hope it helps. (Sorry about doing this again, but being a teacher I have to say something. Please excuse my compulsion.) 

*Mir* is the dative form of *ich*. The dative serves two main purposes in German. (there are verbs whose objects also must be in the dative, but I´ll wait be invited to discuss those.)



1) It designates the object of certain prepositionsa) Always after aus, außer, bei, mit, nach, seit, von, zu

b) To show location when after auf, an, unter, in, vor, über, neben, zwischen, etc.
​2) It designates the Indirect Object (IO). The IO generally answers the question "to whom/what" or "for whom/what" something is being done. Another way to think about this is that the IO often ends up somehow "receiving" the direct object. For example:--He gave her the ball. her= IO, ball=DO

--They told us a story. us=IO, story=DO
--I bought me a new dress. me=IO, dress=DO
(a very colloquial structure. NOT part of high-register English)
​As we can see in the first two examples, the IO usually refers to something or someone other than the subject. When the IO _does_ refer to the subject, it is reflexive (as a mirror reflects the the viewer´s image). When this is the situation, the third person pronouns differ from the normal dative pronouns:

singular is *sich* (not *ihm, ihr*); plural is also *sich* (not *ihnen*). 

So, in the two sentences that started this thread (thank you, magg, btw ,for your astute observations of grammar and insightful questions) we see the following:

Question one uses the dative because *mir* is the object of the preposition zu.
Question two uses the dative because *mir *is the indirect object answering the question "for whom". Additionally, because *mir* refers to the subject *ich* it a reflexive indirect object.

Does this make sense?


----------



## Magg

enzodava said:
			
		

> Does this make sense?


Absolutely, yes.

That was what I needed to know. It really helps me a lot to understand those little things. My German teacher teaches the language in a communicative way, which is also useful, but doesn´t analyse grammatical functions too much and she pretends that we understand everything on our own, simply by applying common sense.

Thanks a lot for you time and your good explanation.

Magg


----------



## enzodava

Glad to be of help, magg.

I like many aspects of the communicative method as well--and have used them in my classroom. It works well with younger learners (primary school), but once we have started to systematize the way we think about language (this usually happens by our teens), it's difficult to "unlearn" that habit and go with a completely functional approach. Keep asking those why-questions. You're on the right track.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> What about animals? I still don't know if one can say "it" or "he" to a male dog. I don't know what gender you use in English to indicate animals, or rather pets.


Animals are neuter nouns because all nouns in English are neuter, grammatically, which you know. However, you also know very well that we always use "he" or "she" to refer to people. The only exception is with a baby, and perhaps that is because we sometimes don't know what sex "it" is. As soon as we know the sex of a baby, we use "he" and "she".

It's the same with animals. Think of cats, for instance. I can't look at a cat and tell immediately if "it" is male or female. A typical question might be:

Is your cat a male or a female?
Is your cat a "he" or a "she"?

Once we know, we avoid "it". For our own animals we never use "it".

We have a very old cat, 23 years old and blind now. If we can't find her, we say: "Where is she?" Never: "Where is it?"

But we would use "it" for snake or a roach, or any beast we don't like that is ugly and disgusting. "Kill that d--- thing before IT gets loose in the house."

This is the key to why we never use "it" for people. This little word is used for people who disgust us. It's incredibly rude!

Does that help?

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> Animals are neuter nouns because all nouns in English are neuter, grammatically, which you know. However, you also know very well that we always use "he" or "she" to refer to people. The only exception is with a baby, and perhaps that is because we sometimes don't know what sex "it" is. As soon as we know the sex of a baby, we use "he" and "she".
> 
> It's the same with animals. Think of cats, for instance. I can't look at a cat and tell immediately if "it" is male or female. A typical question might be:
> 
> Is your cat a male or a female?
> Is your cat a "he" or a "she"?
> 
> Once we know, we avoid "it". For our own animals we never use "it".
> 
> We have a very old cat, 23 years old and blind now. If we can't find her, we say: "Where is she?" Never: "Where is it?"
> 
> But we would use "it" for snake or a roach, or any beast we don't like that is ugly and disgusting. "Kill that d--- thing before IT gets loose in the house."
> 
> This is the key to why we never use "it" for people. This little word is used for people who disgust us. It's incredibly rude!
> 
> Does that help?
> 
> Gaer



You bet! That helps a lot. It's one of the points that I really never understood in English, but now I do. Thanks to you. Let me suggest the German way of indicating animals:

Ist es ein "Er" oder eine "Sie"?

And if you say "Oh, die katze ist aber schön", you authomatically use the female form, since a cat is always female in German. But the "owner" of the cat might say "Ja, aber "Sie" ist ein "Er"!"

Does that make sense to you?


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Let me suggest the German way of indicating animals:
> 
> Ist es ein "Er" oder eine "Sie"?
> 
> And if you say "Oh, die katze ist aber schön", you authomatically use the female form, since a cat is always female in German. But the "owner" of the cat might say "Ja, aber "Sie" ist ein "Er"!"
> 
> Does that make sense to you?


Oh, absolutely, but that reminds of what might be an interesting topic. 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> Oh, absolutely, but that reminds of what might be an interesting topic.
> 
> Gaer



Yes, and you're the master of creating new threads.


----------



## c-m-p

Whodunit said:
			
		

> And if you say "Oh, die katze ist aber schön", you authomatically use the female form, since a cat is always female in German. But the "owner" of the cat might say "Ja, aber "Sie" ist ein "Er"!"
> 
> Does that make sense to you?


 
Ja, macht es - definitiv ... 

Es ist schon sehr interessant, wie Deutschlernende so manches wahrnehmen.


----------



## Whodunit

c-m-p said:
			
		

> Ja, macht es - definitiv ...
> 
> Es ist schon sehr interessant, wie Deutschlernende so manches wahrnehmen.



Meintest du mich mit "Deutschlernender"?


----------



## c-m-p

Nein, aber da fehlt wohl noch ein "müssen" am Ende.
Du stelltest ja die Frage, ob das Sinn für sie macht. Ich würde mir die Frage niemals stellen ... aber wenn ich mich nun versuche in Deutschlernende hineinzuversetzen, muss da viel komisch klingen. Wenn ich so manchen Satz bewußt betrachte über den ich sonst nie nachdenke, entdecke ich schon lustiges ...


----------



## Whodunit

c-m-p said:
			
		

> Nein, aber da fehlt wohl noch ein "müssen" am Ende.
> Du stelltest ja die Frage, ob das Sinn für sie macht. Ich würde mir die Frage niemals stellen ... aber wenn ich mich nun versuche in Deutschlernende hineinzuversetzen, muss da viel komisch klingen. Wenn ich so manchen Satz bewußt betrachte über den ich sonst nie nachdenke, entdecke ich schon lustiges ...



Why? That's really often said by native speakers. And if it makes sense for them, I'll be content. Do you understand my point now? That's actually the same as in German: "Kapierst du das?" You wouldn't find a native English speaker that asks "Do you get that?" at the end of an explanation.

Gaer, please help me. Does "Does that make sense to you?" sound strange?


----------



## sohc4

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Gaer, please help me. Does "Does that make sense to you?" sound strange?


Excuse me for jumping in , but it doesn't sound strange at all .

Axl


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Why? That's really often said by native speakers. And if it makes sense for them, I'll be content. Do you understand my point now? That's actually the same as in German: "Kapierst du das?" You wouldn't find a native English speaker that asks "Do you get that?" at the end of an explanation.
> 
> Gaer, please help me. Does "Does that make sense to you?" sound strange?


Absolutely NOT. It's 100% correct. It asks me if what you have said is clearly explained and if I have understood it.

I did understand it, and what you wrote is perfect English!

You are also correct that "do you get that?" is wrong.

But these are right, and I can't tell you why:


"Kapierst du das?" 

1) Do you get it?
2) Did you get that?

PLEASE don't ask me why the verb is different!

But your way is much more polite! 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> Absolutely NOT. It's 100% correct. It asks me if what you have said is clearly explained and if I have understood it.
> 
> I did understand it, and what you wrote is perfect English!
> 
> You are also correct that "do you get that?" is wrong.
> 
> But these are right, and I can't tell you why:
> 
> 
> "Kapierst du das?"
> 
> 1) Do you get it?
> 2) Did you get that?
> 
> PLEASE don't ask me why the verb is different!
> 
> But your way is much more polite!
> 
> Gaer



Did you want to tell me that (1) and (2) are correct or incorrect English? BTW, thanks for justifying my English.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Did you want to tell me that (1) and (2) are correct or incorrect English? BTW, thanks for justifying my English.


 

1) Do you get that?  
2) Did you get that?  
3) Do you get it?  
4) Did you get it?  

We don't say it the first way. The rest are all very informal ways of saying:

Have you understood what was said/explained? BE
Did you understood what was said/explained? AE

Both of these longer sentences can be used in BE or AE, but the construction with "have" appears more often in BE…

If you stick with "did you get it/that", you should always be safe! But it's a bit abrupt, so I would be more likely to say:

I hope you understand that…

G

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> 1) Do you get that?
> 2) Did you get that?
> 3) Do you get it?
> 4) Did you get it?
> 
> We don't say it the first way. The rest are all very informal ways of saying:
> 
> Have you understood what was said/explained? BE
> Did you understood what was said/explained? AE
> 
> Both of these longer sentences can be used in BE or AE, but the construction with "have" appears more often in BE…
> 
> If you stick with "did you get it/that", you should always be safe! But it's a bit abrupt, so I would be more likely to say:
> 
> I hope you understand that…
> 
> G
> 
> Gaer



Well, I always said "Did you get it?" and answered the same question with "I get it!" I don't know why, but it's uncommon to say "I got it!", right?


----------



## enzodava

Allow me to jump in here and add one more expression to the acceptable list for AE--and this is _very_ informal, but not impolite. 

"Got it?"


----------



## Whodunit

enzodava said:
			
		

> Allow me to jump in here and add one more expression to the acceptable list for AE--and this is _very_ informal, but not impolite.
> 
> "Got it?"



Yes, I know. But isn't "*I* got it." impolite?


----------



## enzodava

No, it really isn't. In fact, I often ask my students "Got it?" It's just very casual. Especially when the personal pronoun is omitted. Actually, _with_ the pronoun, the question will sound too stiff in the given context or relationship. The answer, likewise, "Yep, I got it," is not considered rude, just informal. 

In fact, the more I think about it, there is a symantic difference between "Got it?" and "Did you get it?" (Again, we're talking about a very casual exchange among people who know each other reasonably well.)

"Got it?" almost exclusively means "Do you understand?"
"Did you get it?" would more often mean "Did you receive it?" (Did you get the letter? Did you get what you wanted? Did you get the car?...)

Got it?


----------



## Whodunit

enzodava said:
			
		

> No, it really isn't. In fact, I often ask my students "Got it?" It's just very casual. Especially when the personal pronoun is omitted. Actually, _with_ the pronoun, the question will sound too stiff in the given context or relationship. The answer, likewise, "Yep, I got it," is not considered rude, just informal.
> 
> In fact, the more I think about it, there is a symantic difference between "Got it?" and "Did you get it?" (Again, we're talking about a very casual exchange among people who know each other reasonably well.)
> 
> "Got it?" almost exclusively means "Do you understand?"
> "Did you get it?" would more often mean "Did you receive it?" (Did you get the letter? Did you get what you wanted? Did you get the car?...)
> 
> Got it?



Yup, definitely!   

I really got it and I also got your message I wanted.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Yes, I know. But isn't "*I* got it." impolite?


Not at all, just very informal.

Got it? 

But a smile makes all the difference in the world, which is why I tend to be just a little bit more formal when writing. That's why I normally say:

Doest that make sense?  

Gaer


----------



## gaer

enzodava said:
			
		

> No, it really isn't. In fact, I often ask my students "Got it?" It's just very casual. Especially when the personal pronoun is omitted. Actually, _with_ the pronoun, the question will sound too stiff in the given context or relationship. The answer, likewise, "Yep, I got it," is not considered rude, just informal.
> 
> In fact, the more I think about it, there is a symantic difference between "Got it?" and "Did you get it?" (Again, we're talking about a very casual exchange among people who know each other reasonably well.)
> 
> "Got it?" almost exclusively means "Do you understand?"
> "Did you get it?" would more often mean "Did you receive it?" (Did you get the letter? Did you get what you wanted? Did you get the car?...)
> 
> Got it?


I have to disagree with you, because it's a matter of context. If I have just explained something to someone, I would most definitely say:

"Did you get it/that?"

Any student I have, of any age, would understand what I meant. Who, I'm trying to make a point here, for you too.

Did you get it? 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> I have to disagree with you, because it's a matter of context. If I have just explained something to someone, I would most definitely say:
> 
> "Did you get it/that?"
> 
> Any student I have, of any age, would understand what I meant. Who, I'm trying to make a point here, for you too.
> 
> Did you get it?
> 
> Gaer



Why do you have to disagree? Is there any good reàson? I suppose I didn't quite understand (ehm - get   ) you here. Maybe I even lost you here, but would you please explain why you had to disagree with Enzodova.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Why do you have to disagree? Is there any good reàson? I suppose I didn't quite understand (ehm - get  ) you here. Maybe I even lost you here, but would you please explain why you had to disagree with Enzodova.


I'm sorry. In this case, if my point was really not understandable, then there is nothing I can add.


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> I'm sorry. In this case, if my point was really not understandable, then there is nothing I can add.



No, wait. If you explain it once again with other words, I'll maybe be able to follow you and agree with you.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> No, wait. If you explain it once again with other words, I'll maybe be able to follow you and agree with you.


 
I have to go back, and no more blue windows, because they truly destroy all continuity and I HATE them.

enzodava said:

_In fact, the more I think about it, there is a symantic difference between "Got it?" and "Did you get it?" (Again, we're talking about a very casual exchange among people who know each other reasonably well.)_

I am stating for a fact that I used these two phrases interchangeably. The first is shorter, that's all. That's how *I* use these phrases, okay? And, by the way, the word is "semantic". Normally I never mention such things. It's just not important. But if we HAVE to split hairs, then split the PARTS of the hair we've already split, then that's the way it's going to be.

Did you get it?
Do you get it?
Did you undertand it?
Do you understand it?
Get it?
Got it?

This is highly informal. You can NOT logically analyze language as it is used in a totally informal, relaxed environment. I'm sorry, but no matter what discussion I get involved in, people are determined to pick things to pieces. No one seems capable of saying, "Okay, there are two choices (or more), and they all work. There is no clear answer."

This endless hairsplitting has become so annoying to me that I have found myself thinking of WR with extreme irritation and it causes me to avoid participating.

Then this:

enzodava: 
_"Did you get it?" would more often mean "Did you receive it?" (Did you get the letter? Did you get what you wanted? Did you get the car?...)_

Both of us were talking about teaching. Right? Now, if I have just finished explaining how to play a piece of music, and I say, "Did you get it?" do you really think anyone I teach is stupid enough to think I'm asking a question about receiving a letter or a car?

Come ON!!!

I just came back from a funeral service today. That was about something important. In the future, if I say, as an American, as someone who has spoken English my entire life, "I say this OR this", I don't want to have a simple statement picked to pieces any more.

I'm tired. But I tried to explain, again.

Did you get it? Did anyone NOT get it?

Gaer


----------



## Marcus

Whodunit said:
			
		

> "Mir" in the second example is reflexive:
> 
> ich ... mir:
> Ich kaufe mir ein Buch.
> (literal) I buy me a book.
> English: I'm buying a book for MYSELF.
> 
> du ... dir:
> Du kaufst dir ein Buch.
> (literal) You buy you a book.
> English: You're buying a book for YOURSELF.
> 
> er ... sich:
> Er kauft sich ein Buch.
> (literal) He buys him a book.
> English: He's buying a book for HIMSELF.
> 
> sie ... sich
> Sie kauft sich ein Buch.
> (literal) She buys her a book.
> English: She's buying a book for HERSELF.
> 
> es (das Kind) ... sich:
> Es kauft sich ein Buch.
> (literal) It buys it a book.
> English: It's buying a book for ITSELF.
> 
> wir ... uns:
> Wir kaufen uns ein Buch.
> (literal) We buy us a book.
> English: We're buying a book for OURSELVES.
> 
> ihr ... euch:
> Ihr kauft euch ein Buch.
> (literal) You buy you a book.
> English: You're buying a book for YOURSELVES.
> 
> sie/Sie ... sich
> Sie kaufen sich ein Buch.
> (literal) They/You buy them/you a book.
> English: They're/You're buying a book for THEMSELVES/YOURSELF.


Shouldn't we declinate this sentence with dative, for the book?
- Ich kaufe mir ein*em* Buch. 

thanks in advanced! Marcus


----------



## enzodava

Marcus,

I'm sorry, but Buch, in your example cannot be dative. Remember three things:

1) Sentences do not have case. Only individual noun phrases have case.

2) All direct objects can only be accusative. A direct object is that thing or person or idea that the verb is acting on. In the example the D.O. is the thing that is being given: the book.

3) All indirect objects can only be dative. An indirect object is that thing or person or idea for whom/what or to whom/what the subject is acting. In the example, the I.O. is the thing/person to whom the book is being given. A hint here: the I.O. almost always receives or is affected by the D.O.
--I wrote my dad a letter (dad is the I.O. and receives the D.O.--the letter)
--They threw them a ball (them is the I.O. and receives the D.O.--a ball)
--Le canté una canción (le is the I.O. and receives the D.O.--una canción)


See below for further, albeit more extraneous information on cases and meaning.
_______________________________________________________________


In German the case of a word is applied according to the word's function in the sentence and helps clarify meaning. For this reason it's important to keep them straight. Consider the following.

Der Hund biss den Mann.
Den Hund biss der Mann.

The word order has not changed, but the cases of the Subject and the Direct Object has. Whereas in English and Spanish, word order, more than anything, governs a word's function in the sentence, it is the case that determines function in German. So, the English translations of the above sentences must change the word order to be clear in meaning:

The dog bit the man.
The man bit the dog.


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> Did you get it? Did anyone NOT get it?



Well, at least I got it! Thank you very much for settling this problem.


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Well, at least I got it! Thank you very much for settling this problem.



I don't want to seem like I'm jumping in unnecessarily here (or splitting hairs), but I just wanted to emphasize that the choice among all of these possibilities really depends on the situation and the context.  That is, "did you get it?" can sound concerned or derogatory, depending on the situation.  It in itself is neutral (aside from the fact that it's informal, which we've already discussed.)  

PERSONALLY, I would not use "did you get it?" at the end of any of my posts in this forum.  I think it sounds kind of abrupt and condescending.  (BUT THAT'S JUST ME!)  

Here are some things I might say:

Is that clear?
Does that make sense to you?
Was that clear?
Did I explain that well?

I just wouldn't say "Did you get it?" (Actually, if anything, I would say "do you get it?" but again, not in this forum.)

When explaining a math problem to my little brother, I might say "do you get it now?"  I might use "did you get it?" after a really difficult lecture, for example: "Wow, that speech was really tough to understand.  Did you get it?" 

In response, I would either just say "yes" ("yup") or "Got it."  I can't imagine myself saying "I got it."  The "I" seems emphatic and rather assertive, rather akin to saying "Yes, I got it, I'm not stupid."  

Again, though...these are my preferences.  I don't think these rules are set in stone by any means.


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> "Mir" in the second example is reflexive:
> 
> ich ... mir:
> Ich kaufe mir ein Buch.
> (literal) I buy me a book. INFORMAL
> English: I'm buying a book for MYSELF.
> 
> du ... dir:
> Du kaufst dir ein Buch.
> (literal) You buy you a book. INFORMAL
> English: You're buying a book for YOURSELF.
> 
> er ... sich:
> Er kauft sich ein Buch.
> (literal) He buys him a book.
> English: He's buying a book for HIMSELF.
> 
> sie ... sich
> Sie kauft sich ein Buch.
> (literal) She buys her a book.
> English: She's buying a book for HERSELF.
> 
> es (das Kind) ... sich:
> Es kauft sich ein Buch.
> (literal) It buys it a book.
> English: It's buying a book for ITSELF.
> 
> wir ... uns:
> Wir kaufen uns ein Buch.
> (literal) We buy us a book.
> English: We're buying a book for OURSELVES.
> 
> ihr ... euch:
> Ihr kauft euch ein Buch.
> (literal) You buy you a book. INFORMAL
> English: You're buying a book for YOURSELVES.
> 
> sie/Sie ... sich
> Sie kaufen sich ein Buch.
> (literal) They/You buy them/you a book.
> English: They're/You're buying a book for THEMSELVES/YOURSELF.



I just want to point out that in formal English you would use the reflexive forms of the pronouns, whether translating literally or not:

I buy *myself * a book.
You buy *yourself * a book.
He buys *himself * a book.
She buys *herself * a book.
We buy *ourselves * a book.
You buy *yourselves * a book.
They buy *themselves* a book.

In spoken English you may hear "I buy me a book" and MAYBE "You buy you a book" but I don't think you'd use the objective pronoun with the third person pronouns, because of the ambiguity that would result.  This is precisely the same reason the reflexive pronouns in German are different from the regular accusative and dative pronouns.  Consider these examples:

He buys him a book. = Er kauft ihm (einem anderen) ein Buch.
He buys himself a book. = Er kauft sich ein Buch.

She buys her a book. = Sie kauft ihr (einer anderen) ein Buch.
She buys herself a book. = Sie kauft sich ein Buch.

They buy them a book. = Sie kaufen ihnen (anderen) ein Buch.
They buy themselves a book. = Sie kaufen sich ein Buch.

As for "We buy us a book," I guess that's also theoretically possible in spoken English, but I can't personally say I've ever heard it.


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> PERSONALLY, I would not use "did you get it?" at the end of any of my posts in this forum. I think it sounds kind of abrupt and condescending. (BUT THAT'S JUST ME!)
> Elroy, I actually agree with you. And talking about what is polite is never hairsplitting. I don't even know if "hairsplitting" is one word.
> 
> My response last night was abrupt, angry. And I apologize to everyone for having written it. I would delete it, but you are referring to it, so it's too late.
> 
> The truth is that I should not have replied at all, to any posts last night. As I wrote twice in PMs tonight, a man I like very much, in France, who has been helping me learn to read French, a really fine human being, had a life-threatening heart attack in the last 24 hours or so. His younger son let me know.
> 
> This is really too personal to be writing about here, but I feel very close to several people in this forum, and I thought it only fair to mention what was really going on.
> 
> So, for the record, I normally answer with things like:
> 
> "I hope my explanation was clear."
> 
> The other phrases I mentioned I use in conversation, and we all know that when talking, a wink, a smile and kind intentions color words in a very different way.
> 
> That's it for me tonight. I'm going to find a rock and crawl under it.
> 
> Gaer
> 
> PS: If I made any mistakes or typos, please ignore them tonight. I just don't care right now…


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> I just want to point out that in formal English you would use the reflexive forms of the pronouns, whether translating literally or not:
> 
> I buy *myself * a book.
> You buy *yourself * a book.
> He buys *himself * a book.
> She buys *herself * a book.
> We buy *ourselves * a book.
> You buy *yourselves * a book.
> They buy *themselves* a book.
> 
> In spoken English you may hear "I buy me a book" and MAYBE "You buy you a book" but I don't think you'd use the objective pronoun with the third person pronouns, because of the ambiguity that would result.  This is precisely the same reason the reflexive pronouns in German are different from the regular accusative and dative pronouns.  Consider these examples:
> 
> He buys him a book. = Er kauft ihm (einem anderen) ein Buch.
> He buys himself a book. = Er kauft sich ein Buch.
> 
> She buys her a book. = Sie kauft ihr (einer anderen) ein Buch.
> She buys herself a book. = Sie kauft sich ein Buch.
> 
> They buy them a book. = Sie kaufen ihnen (anderen) ein Buch.
> They buy themselves a book. = Sie kaufen sich ein Buch.
> 
> As for "We buy us a book," I guess that's also theoretically possible in spoken English, but I can't personally say I've ever heard it.



Okay, I just wanted German learners to understand the reflexive pronouns, that's why I tried to translate it literally. But if you think it's totally wrong, I'll have to accept it and thank you very much.


----------



## elroy

gaer said:
			
		

> elroy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PERSONALLY, I would not use "did you get it?" at the end of any of my posts in this forum. I think it sounds kind of abrupt and condescending. (BUT THAT'S JUST ME!)
> Elroy, I actually agree with you. And talking about what is polite is never hairsplitting. I don't even know if "hairsplitting" is one word.
> 
> My response last night was abrupt, angry. And I apologize to everyone for having written it. I would delete it, but you are referring to it, so it's too late.
> 
> The truth is that I should not have replied at all, to any posts last night. As I wrote twice in PMs tonight, a man I like very much, in France, who has been helping me learn to read French, a really fine human being, had a life-threatening heart attack in the last 24 hours or so. His younger son let me know.
> 
> This is really too personal to be writing about here, but I feel very close to several people in this forum, and I thought it only fair to mention what was really going on.
> 
> So, for the record, I normally answer with things like:
> 
> "I hope my explanation was clear."
> 
> The other phrases I mentioned I use in conversation, and we all know that when talking, a wink, a smile and kind intentions color words in a very different way.
> 
> That's it for me tonight. I'm going to find a rock and crawl under it.
> 
> Gaer
> 
> PS: If I made any mistakes or typos, please ignore them tonight. I just don't care right now…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No problem, Gaer.  We all have days like that!  And hey, despite the tone of your post, you made a lot of good points in it!
> 
> Sorry to hear about your friend.  I hope everything works out for the best.
Click to expand...


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Okay, I just wanted German learners to understand the reflexive pronouns, that's why I tried to translate it literally. But if you think it's totally wrong, I'll have to accept it and thank you very much.



What I was trying to say was that even a literal translation would use the reflexive pronouns.

Er kauft sich ein Buch = He buys himself a book. (literally)


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> What I was trying to say was that even a literal translation would use the reflexive pronouns.
> 
> Er kauft sich ein Buch = He buys himself a book. (literally)


As an English speaker, I understood what Who was getting at, and I would suggest this:

ich ... mir:
Ich kaufe mir ein Buch.
(literal) I buy me a book. SUBSTANDARD DENGLISH
(smooth) I'm buying MYSELF a book for. OR I'm buying a book for MYSELF. (CORRECT)

[…]

er ... sich:
Er kauft sich ein Buch.
(literal) He buys him a book. SUBSTANDARD DENGLISH
(smooth) He's buying HIMSELF a book for. OR He's buying a book for HIMSELF. (CORRECT)

The reason I actually liked this unorthodox explanation is that it shows two things. First, it makes a clear distinction between the use of "mir/mich" and it demonstrates that "sich" is used as dative.

Second, it's VERY common in parts of the US to hear this:

Well, he bought him a book. (It should be himself)
Well, he bought us a book. (It should be ouselves)

I have a theory that in the souther US, you often hear forms of English that sound strangely like German. I've never been able to track down an historical reason, but think of other things:

_That's good (fine) by me._
_You did that right good._

And there are others like this, more than most people realize. Although most people would simply say that these are ungrammatical, they are also idiomatic and often "colorful". 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> As an English speaker, I understood what Who was getting at, and I would suggest this:
> 
> ich ... mir:
> Ich kaufe mir ein Buch.
> (literal) I buy me a book. SUBSTANDARD DENGLISH
> (smooth) I'm buying MYSELF a book for. OR I'm buying a book for MYSELF. (CORRECT)
> 
> […]
> 
> er ... sich:
> Er kauft sich ein Buch.
> (literal) He buys him a book. SUBSTANDARD DENGLISH
> (smooth) He's buying HIMSELF a book for. OR He's buying a book for HIMSELF. (CORRECT)
> 
> The reason I actually liked this unorthodox explanation is that it shows two things. First, it makes a clear distinction between the use of "mir/mich" and it demonstrates that "sich" is used as dative.



Thank you very much for this info. But even though you backed up my versions, I'll remember Elroy's variants, because I want to learn standard English first.



> Second, it's VERY common in parts of the US to hear this:
> 
> Well, he bought him a book. (It should be himself)
> Well, he bought us a book. (It should be ouselves)
> 
> I have a theory that in the souther US, you often hear forms of English that sound strangely like German. I've never been able to track down an historical reason, but think of other things:
> 
> _That's good (fine) by me._
> _You did that right good._
> 
> And there are others like this, more than most people realize. Although most people would simply say that these are ungrammatical, they are also idiomatic and often "colorful".
> 
> Gaer



Does "Help me quick" belong to this group? I once heard it in an English song, but it sounded ungrammatically to me.


----------



## elroy

gaer said:
			
		

> As an English speaker, I understood what Who was getting at, and I would suggest this:
> 
> ich ... mir:
> Ich kaufe mir ein Buch.
> (literal) I buy me a book. SUBSTANDARD DENGLISH
> (smooth) I'm buying MYSELF a book for. OR I'm buying a book for MYSELF. (CORRECT)
> 
> […]
> 
> er ... sich:
> Er kauft sich ein Buch.
> (literal) He buys him a book. SUBSTANDARD DENGLISH
> (smooth) He's buying HIMSELF a book for. OR He's buying a book for HIMSELF. (CORRECT)
> 
> The reason I actually liked this unorthodox explanation is that it shows two things. First, it makes a clear distinction between the use of "mir/mich" and it demonstrates that "sich" is used as dative.
> 
> Second, it's VERY common in parts of the US to hear this:
> 
> Well, he bought him a book. (It should be himself)
> Well, *we * bought us a book. (It should be ouselves)
> 
> I have a theory that in the souther*n* US, you often hear forms of English that sound strangely like German. I've never been able to track down an historical reason, but think of other things:
> 
> _That's good (fine) by me._
> _You did that right good._
> 
> And there are others like this, more than most people realize. Although most people would simply say that these are ungrammatical, they are also idiomatic and often "colorful".
> 
> Gaer



Haha...you're definitely right!  I had just wanted to point out the difference between substandard and standard usage.  You're completely right, though; in fact, when I was learning this particular usage of the dative, my teacher from North Carolina compared it to "North Carolina German" or something along those lines.  It was easier to remember, I guess, when compared with "I bought me a book."  

PS - I corrected a couple typos in your message; hope that's ok!


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Thank you very much for this info. But even though you backed up my versions, I'll remember Elroy's variants, because I want to learn standard English first.
> 
> 
> 
> Does "Help me quick" belong to this group? I once heard it in an English song, but it sounded *ungrammatical * to me.



I'm not sure I've heard that, but I wouldn't be surprised if I heard it in an informal (Southern US) conversation.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Thank you very much for this info. But even though you backed up my versions, I'll remember Elroy's variants, because I want to learn standard English first.


Elroy's examples are correct!


> Does "Help me quick" belong to this group? I once heard it in an English song, but it sounded ungrammatically to me.


[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure. Leaving off the "ly" in an adverb is sometimes regional, sometimes lazy and informal and sometimes ignorance. It's really hard to say. 

But in your sentence, above, it must be 'grammatical". Words such as "feel" and "sound" and "look" take adjectives, not adverbs.

It is/looks/seems/sounds ungrammatical.  

Gaer


----------



## elroy

gaer said:
			
		

> Elroy's examples are correct!


I'm not sure. Leaving off the "ly" in an adverb is sometimes regional, sometimes lazy and informal and sometimes ignorance. It's really hard to say. 

But in your sentence, above, it must be 'grammatical". Words such as "feel" and "sound" and "look" take adjectives, not adverbs.

It is/looks/seems/sounds ungrammatical.  

Gaer[/QUOTE]

The reason is that these verbs belong to a special set of English verbs that can be linking verbs or action verbs.  There are 11 of them: *taste, feel, smell, sound, look, appear, become, seem, grow, remain, stay*.

When these verbs are linking verbs, that is, when they link the subject to some other word in the sentence, they take adjectives.

This tastes *delicious*.
It feels *windy*.
The cake smells *burnt*.

When these verbs are action verbs, they can take an adverb.

I tasted the cake *eagerly*.
I *carefully * felt his wounds.
I *happily * smelled the aroma of freshly ground coffee. 

Wouldn't it be great, if, like in German, adjectives and adverbs were all the same!


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> But in your sentence, above, it must be 'grammatical". Words such as "feel" and "sound" and "look" take adjectives, not adverbs.



Haha, I asked for an adverb mistake and made one simultaneously!   

Thank you both very much.


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> *taste, feel, smell, sound, look,*


*

Hm, okay, I know them. But I can't remember them when I write some lines. But this mistake doesn't happen so much, I suppose.




			appear, become, seem, grow, remain, stay
		
Click to expand...

*
Never heard of them! Thank you.


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Haha, I asked about  an adverb mistake and made one simultaneously!
> 
> Thank you both very much.



ask about smth. = nach etwas fragen
ask for smth. = um etwas bitten




> Quote:
> appear, become, seem, grow, remain, stay
> 
> 
> 
> Never heard of them! Thank you.



appear = scheinen
become = werden
seem = scheinen
grow = werden (mehr oder weniger)
remain = bleiben
stay = bleiben

Schlag doch mal bei Leo nach.


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> ask about smth. = nach etwas fragen
> ask for smth. = um etwas bitten



Ah, a mistake I very often made. Thanks.



> appear = scheinen
> become = werden
> seem = scheinen
> grow = werden (mehr oder weniger)
> remain = bleiben
> stay = bleiben
> 
> Schlag doch mal bei Leo nach.



Haha, of course, I know the words! I just didn't know about their specificity (strange word, isn't it?).


----------



## elroy

> Ah, a mistake I very often make. Thanks.



Unless you mean you don't make it anymore!   




> Haha, of course (no comma)  I know the words! I just didn't know about their specificity (strange word, isn't it?).



Yeah, ok.  I _was _ pretty surprised when you said you hadn't heard of them!   

"Specificity" sounds kind of funny, but it's a pretty common word.  What do you mean, though?  What do you mean by the "specificity" of these words?


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> Unless you mean you don't make it anymore!



That's what I wanted to say: made!   



> Yeah, ok.  I _was _ pretty surprised when you said you hadn't heard of them!
> 
> "Specificity" sounds kind of funny, but it's a pretty common word.  What do you mean, though?  What do you mean by the "specificity" of these words?



Hm, I really didn't know how to say "Fähigkeit (ability)" here. I wanted to say I didn't know that those words "besitzen solch eine besondere Fähigkeit to govern the adverb usage".


----------



## elroy

> That's what I wanted to say: made!



If you mean that you don't make it anymore, then you should say "used to make"!   





> Hm, I really didn't know how to say "Fähigkeit (ability)" here. I wanted to say I didn't know that those words "besitzen solch eine besondere Fähigkeit to govern the adverb usage".



I didn't know about their VERSATILITY!    Do you know that word?  If not, it's a good word to learn!   

I know that doesn't exactly mean "Fähigkeit," but that's not really what you want to say here.  These words don't have a special "ability"; they just have two different meanings.  Observe:

He suddenly appeared out of the bushes.
(adverb because I literally mean that he "appeared" - he emerged, he came out.  It's an action verb, so it cannot take a predicate adjective.)

He appeared happy to see me.
(adjective because here I mean that he "looked" happy to see me.  "He appeared happily" would mean that he jumped out of the bushes with a smile on his face!) 

So that's why I'd say "versatility."  Otherwise, I don't know what I would have said for "Fähigkeit."  We don't really think of words as having "abilities" in English.  Perhaps "feature," but that doesn't really indicate a special power or ability.  You could also say "special function."


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> I'm not sure. Leaving off the "ly" in an adverb is sometimes regional, sometimes lazy and informal and sometimes ignorance. It's really hard to say.


Hmm.

He did that right quick. Regional, definitely, the South.
Hey, get it done quick! (It should be quickly, but many of use might say that in a hurry and informally.

I'm sure you can think of instances when people leave of the adverb ending "ly" because they don't know it should be there.


> The reason is that these verbs belong to a special set of English verbs that can be linking verbs or action verbs. There are 11 of them: *taste, feel, smell, sound, look, appear, become, seem, grow, remain, stay*.


Eight deal with the senses. The other four deal with change (or lack of it). Elroy, I had never thought about this before. I just learned something new, although I have used these all correctly:

Senses:
1) taste 
2) feel
3) smell
4) sound
5) look, appear, seem

Change or lack of it:

1) become
2) grow
3) remain
4) stay

But "change" itself takes an adverb (change quickly). Hmm.


> When these verbs are linking verbs, that is, when they link the subject to some other word in the sentence, they take adjectives.
> 
> This tastes *delicious*.
> It feels *windy*.
> The cake smells *burnt*.


Right.


> When these verbs are action verbs, they can take an adverb.
> 
> Also:
> The plant grew quickly
> I tasted the cake *eagerly*.
> I *carefully *felt his wounds.
> I *happily *smelled the aroma of freshly ground coffee.


Great analysis. I'd never thought about any of this before. I just knew the correct usage by "feel". 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> If you mean that you don't make it anymore, then you should say "used to make"!



Okay, I hope once I may say "used to" in this case.


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Okay, I hope once I may say "used to" in this case.



You can now!


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> You can now!



Thank you very much for this compliment. But can you judge that, since I haven't used this expression yet after your commen?


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Thank you very much for this compliment. But can you judge that, since I haven't used this expression yet after your comment?



No, but I'm assuming you're a fast learner who isn't going to forget that quickly!   

Don't let me down, Who!


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> Don't let me down, Who!



I'm positive I will not.


----------

