# was da unten im Dunkel des Salzes alles noch so liege.



## Dupon

Die beiden anderen Optionen – die »Umlagerung« in tiefere Schichten des Salzstockes oder die »Vollverfüllung«, eine Versiegelung der Schächte – stoßen auf massiven Widerstand. Damit, so der Verdacht, solle nur vertuscht werden, *was da unten im Dunkel des Salzes alles noch so liege.* Landrat Röhmann sagt: »Wir dürfen nachfolgenden Generationen keine Hypothek hinterlassen.« Das klingt markig. Leider weiß derzeit niemand zu sagen, was für diese und nachfolgende Generationen wirklich das Beste ist.

In “*was da unten im Dunkel des Salzes alles noch so liege.*”, which word is the subject，“was” or “alles”？ Is “alles” the Genitiv of the neuter singular form _alles, it represents all people_?

Thanks!


----------



## Kajjo

The core subordinate clause is:

_..., was (da unten) liege. 
..., was alles (da unten) liege.
_
Main subject is "was", "alles" belongs to the subject, though.


----------



## Dupon

Thanks, then is "alles" the appositive of "was"?



Kajjo said:


> The core subordinate clause is:
> 
> _..., was (da unten) liege.
> ..., was alles (da unten) liege.
> _
> Main subject is "was", "alles" belongs to the subject, though.


----------



## Hutschi

Hi,
the subject of the whole clause is the subordinate clause "_was da unten im Dunkel des Salzes alles noch so liege".

Is this correct?_


----------



## Kajjo

Yes, Hutschi, the subordinate clause is the subject of the main clause. However, the title question was, which word is the subject of the subordinate clause.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

_alles _is an adverb, meaning _insgesamt. _More precisely, it's an adverbial accusative. (cf. _Ich treffe ihn Montag_.)

cf. _Mit wem alles hast du gesprochen?_
You can see that as there is no case congruence between _wem _and _alles_, the latter must be adverbial here.

Wer ist alles beteiligt?


----------



## Hutschi

Kajjo said:


> Yes, Hutschi, the subordinate clause is the subject of the main clause. However, the title question was, which word is the subject of the subordinate clause.


Strictly speaking this is true.
But the question was not so clear to me. It could also include a misunderstanding itself.

You wrote "alles" belongs to the subject, I think, it belongs to the verb.
_Was alles da liegt _vs. _was da alles liegt._

Why does it belong to the subject rather than to the verb?


----------



## Kajjo

_...was alles da unten liegt.
...welche alle da unten liegen._

@Schimmelreiter: So yes, I see a congruence and I believe "alles" to be part of the subject. 

Also I cannot see how "alles" modifies or supplements the verb. Does "alles liegen" make any sense?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

There is no congruence, as clearly shown in my post: _Mit wem alles hast du gesprochen?_
So this is the adverbial-accusative kind of _alles._
Have you read the thread to which I linked above?


----------



## Kajjo

You gave a different example. What about my example in #8?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Under discussion is a subject clause. Your relative clause is unrelated.

_was alles da unten liegt_
*wer* *alles*_ da unten liegt
*wem* *alles* ich vertraue
*wen* *alles* ich hier kenne
_
It's invariably the adverbially used accusative of the indefinite pronoun _alles._


----------



## berndf

Kajjo said:


> Also I cannot see how "alles" modifies or supplements the verb. Does "alles liegen" make any sense?


I'd say no. I agree with you and disagree with Hutschi here. As far as I can see, SR hasn't make any such claim. I agree with him that _alles_ is an adverbial accusative.


----------



## Dupon

Could I understand just like below:
_...was alles da unten liegt.   _In this case(subject clause), *alles* is the accusative prounoun used as an adverb.
_ 
...welche alle da unten liegen.  _In this case(relative clause), *alle* is the prounoun which is the apposition of "welche"?

_


Schimmelreiter said:



			Under discussion is a subject clause. Your relative clause is unrelated.

was alles da unten liegt
*wer* *alles* da unten liegt
*wem* *alles* ich vertraue
*wen* *alles* ich hier kenne

It's invariably the adverbially used accusative of the indefinite pronoun alles.
		
Click to expand...

_


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Yes, except that _alle _is not an apposition but the subject of the relative clause. _welche _is not the subject of the relative clause but solely serves to mark the clause as being relative. Note the similarity of these two relative clauses:

_Die Opfer, die/welche alle da unten liegen, werden morgen geborgen.
Du, der du gut in Mathematik bist, solltest das Beispiel rechnen.
_
In either case, the relative pronoun is not the subject of the relative clause but another pronoun _(alle/du)_ is. This is especially clear with the second sentence, where you see the congruence between the subject _(du) _and the finite verb _(bist)_, ruling out the relative pronoun _(der) _as the subject.


----------



## Kajjo

_Die Opfer, die da unten liegen, werden morgen geborgen._

...and here, "die" is not the subject of the reative clause?l What else is?


----------



## Kajjo

Maybe you are right, that it is an adverbial accusative. However, I do not see how it belongs to the verb, so the term "adverbial" appears strange to me. All other examples of adverbial accusatives are much clearer than this usage of "alles". It appears to me to be part of the subject rather than the verb.

canoonet - Satzglieder: Adverbialbestimmung: Form

Fragen Sie Dr. Bopp! » jeden Freitag


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> Yes, except that _alle _is not an apposition but the subject of the relative clause. _welche _is not the subject of the relative clause but solely serves to mark the clause as being relative. Note the similarity of these two relative clauses:
> 
> _Die Opfer, die/welche alle da unten liegen, werden morgen geborgen.
> Du, der du gut in Mathematik bist, solltest das Beispiel rechnen._


I agree with Kajjo. In
_Die Opfer, die alle da unten liegen..._​_alle _is optional but _die _not. Analysing _die _as the subject and _alle _either as an apposition or as an adverb is much more obvious.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Not as evidence but as an indication, may I say that _relative pronoun + apposition _isn't represented here:
canoonet - Satzgliedbau: Nomengruppe: Apposition

As for _alle _being optional whilst _die _is not, this is exactly why I referred to
_Du, der du gut in Mathematik _*bist*_, solltest das Beispiel rechnen._
Here, _du _is optional whilst _der_ is not. I deem it obvious that once you insert the optional _du_, the role of subject passes from _der _to _du_, to which the congruence between the new subject _du _and the finite verb _bist _is proof. By contrast, absent the optional _du_, the relative pronoun _der _is the subject, agreeing with the finite verb _ist_:
_Du, der gut in Mathematik _*ist* ...


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> congruence between the new subject _du _and the finite verb _bist _is proof.


Good point.
_Du, *der *ein Mann *ist*.
Du, der *Du *ein Mann *bist*._
The addition of _Du _does indeed change the structure of the clause. And the analogy to _die _vs. _die alle_ is indeed imposing. I am not completely convinced yet, but you have a strong argument.


----------



## Kajjo

_Du, *der *ein Mann *ist*._

This strange sentence is an argument? Hm. Not convincing.

Inserting "Du" indeed changes the structure and I agree with the new subject analysis. Convincing indication is the change of the verb conjugation.

However, this is not the case in our example:

_was dort liegt
was alles dort liegt_

Why should here a change of subject occur? The structure does not change at all.

Maybe I really do not understand the concept "adverb" as you do. But for me it always modifies or supplements the verb. This is not the case with "alles" in the above examples.

_...was schon lange dort liegt
...was so alleine dort liegt
...was so dunkel dort liegt
...was alles so dort liegt_

For my feeling, the last example is quite different from the first three. "alles" is not an adverb in the classical sense. What kind of concept do you have of an adverb?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

_alles_, as an adverbial accusative, implies an exhaustive list:

_Wer war alles da?
Who exactly was there?
_
In both languages, the adverb modifies the pronoun.


----------



## Kajjo

Wikipedia gibt interessanterweise folgende Definition für Adverbien (ohne dass ich sie mir zu eigen machen würde). Allerdings passen die canoo-Beispiele alle sehr gut zu dieser Definition.

+ nicht flektierbar
+ kann ein Satzglied bilden (also z.B. das Vorfeld besetzen)

In diesem Sinne wäre _alles_ dann kein Adverb, oder?


----------



## ablativ

_alles _in all the mentioned cases (_Was alles da liegt _vs. _was da alles liegt; wer ist alles beteiligt?; wer war alles da?; mit wem hast du alles gesprochen?, _etc.) can, as already stated by Schimmelreiter, be replaced by "insgesamt" which is undoubtedly and adverb.

One of the synoyms of "insgesamt" is "alles in allem" which can be considered to be an abbreviation of "alles" and which can substitute each "alles" in all the mentioned sentences.

"alles in allem" is not inflectible and can also be placed in the "forefield".

_alles in allem ist wer beteiligt?; alles in allem hast du mit wem gesprochen?

_


----------

