# Guck dir den Dieter an



## JieXian

Hi, this phrase confused me because I was confused about the function of dir and den. . The phrase was from Junge by Die Ärtze

I've been told that 'dir den' 

Also, "dir den" (or something similar in other circumstances) is used to emphazise something "considerable" about this person.



> In this song "dir den" means that Dieter is a positive example and the other one should try to become like him.
> 
> the article here is used to soften the language. " Guck Dieter an" is basically an order and hardly used in a conversation between parent and child. So when you say " guck dir den Dieter an" you soften the language. But those are smal details that are hard to get when you are not a native german. So you dont have to worry when you say " guck dieter an" as a foreigner.



Also, I was wondering if I can use it in other ways. For example, can I say "Sagst dir den mich." Or "Tun ihnen den das"?

Vielen danke!


----------



## Roy776

Absolutely not.
"sich angucken" is reflexive.
Ich gucke MIR an. Du guckst DIR an.
"den" is the declined form of the article "der" in the accusative case. It's just used to emphasize that you mean exactly THAT Dieter. But that is just one possibility. We germans tend to sometimes use articles before names, although they are normally omitted, because of unnecessity. In that case, it's almost always in an ironic sentence.


----------



## Hutschi

It also depends on the region. In the south it is not ironich but quite normal to use articles with person names.

I want to add a condition:
 It is used to emphasize that you mean exactly _*that*_ Dieter, *if it is stressed*. If it is not stressed, it is just an article.

In the given sentence it depends on context and can also be appreciative.

The context is "Guck dir den Dieter an, der hat sogar ein Auto." (die Ärzte)

Here it is clearly appreciative and I think it is just an article, but I do not know the song. So I do not know if "den" is stressed.


----------



## Roy776

I know it, and it is unstressed. As I'm from North Rhine Westphalia, I'm in no way used to other region's usage of the german language. To me, using an article with a name sounds wrong or stupid, if it isn't used in an ironic sentence.


----------



## Sowka

Hello 

This usage depends on the region and on the social group that you are dealing with. We have had several interesting discussions about this topic. Here's one of them; and another one. Oh, and yet another one (That's the one with the social distinction that I had in mind).


----------



## JieXian

Thanks for the explanations. I understand the articles before names problem now.

About "sich angucken" :

For example, I would say " Ich erinnere mich darun" For the verb sich erinnere.

But why is dir or mir used here?


----------



## berndf

The third person reflexive pronoun _sich_ can be either dative or accusative it depends on the verb. In first and second person (_mir_ vs. _mich_; _dir_ vs. _dich_) the forms are different.


----------



## Roy776

JieXian said:


> Thanks for the explanations. I understand the articles before names problem now.
> 
> About "sich angucken" :
> 
> For example, I would say " Ich erinnere mich daran" For the verb sich erinnern.
> 
> But why is dir or mir used here?



Let's take that phrase into the third person.
"Ich erinnere IHN daran". From this point of view, you can see that it's Accusative, otherwise (with Dativ) it'd be "IHM".

Using, dir/dich is a question of the case, nothing more.

To give you a clearer example:

Nominativ: ich, du, er/sie/es, wir, ihr, sie/Sie
Genitiv: meiner, deiner, seiner/ihrer/seiner, unser, euer, ihrer/Ihrer
Akkusativ: mich, dich, ihn/sie/es, uns, euch, ihrer, sie/Sie
Dativ: mir, dir, ihm/ihr/ihm, uns, euch, ihnen/Ihnen

Third person order is masculine/feminine/neuter.

I've left "sich" out in that table. "Sich" is used if you speak of someone in the third person, and the action refers to the person you speak about theirself.


----------



## JieXian

Roy776 said:


> Let's take that phrase into the third person.
> "Ich erinnere IHN daran". From this point of view, you can see that it's Accusative, otherwise (with Dativ) it'd be "IHM".
> 
> Using, dir/dich is a question of the case, nothing more.
> 
> To give you a clearer example:
> 
> Nominativ: ich, du, er/sie/es, wir, ihr, sie/Sie
> Genitiv: meiner, deiner, seiner/ihrer/seiner, unser, euer, ihrer/Ihrer
> Akkusativ: mich, dich, ihn/sie/es, uns, euch, ihrer, sie/Sie
> Dativ: mir, dir, ihm/ihr/ihm, uns, euch, ihnen/Ihnen
> 
> Third person order is masculine/feminine/neuter.
> 
> I've left "sich" out in that table. "Sich" is used if you speak of someone in the third person, and the action refers to the person you speak about theirself.



Thank you. So for "sich angucken" we always use the dativ for "sich angucken"?

For example is "Ich gucke mir die schön Mädchen an." Correct? 

How about "Ich gucke die schön Mädchen." and "Ich gucke mich die schön Mädchen an."?

Are those correct? What is the difference between them?

I'm sorry this is quite confusing for me because it is the first time I came across a reflexive verb that used a dative case.


----------



## Hutschi

"Ich gucke mir die schön*en* Mädchen an." -correct
"Ich gucke die schön*en* Mädchen an." -correct, with a small shift in the meaning.
With "mir" you look at them to see how they look like. Without "mir" you can look at them to get their attention. It is a kind of staring at them (without the negative connotation).

"Ich gucke mich die schön*en* Mädchen an." -wrong, except in some dialects.

Note the dative form of schön, plural.


----------



## Roy776

Hutschi said:


> "Ich gucke mir die schön*en* Mädchen an." -correct
> "Ich gucke die schön*en* Mädchen an." -correct, with a small shift in the meaning.
> With "mir" you look at them to see how they look like. Without "mir" you can look at them to get their attention. It is a kind of staring at them (without the negative connotation).
> 
> "Ich gucke mich die schön*en* Mädchen an." -wrong, except in some dialects.
> 
> Note the dative form of schön, plural.



He has obviously also not yet understood the difference between Accusative and Dative in that case.
Mir, Dir, Uns, Euch = Dative
Mich, Dich, Uns, Euch = Accusative

Otherwise, there's nothing more that needs to be added to Hutschi's explanation.
Okay, maybe one can add more details.
*Angucken = something like staring at someone, but in a less rough way.*
*Sich angucken = It's more like something you do, to find out more about him/her/it, maybe to look into details.*


----------



## Hutschi

And "die schönen Mädchen" are accusative plural.

Angucken has one optional and one required valence (connections to objects)
Additionally prepositional objects are possible.

* one object:*
jemanden angucken - accusative "jemanden"
sich angucken - accusative "sich"

Ich gucke mich im Spiegel an.
I look at me in the mirror.

* two objects*
sich etwas angucken - dative sich, accusative "etwas", the form of "sich" has to be adaptrd to the subject.

in a sentence: Er guckt sich ein Buch an. "Sich" corresponds to "er".
Ich gucke mir ein Buch an. "Mir" corresponds to "ich".


----------



## JieXian

Thank you very much! I understand it now!

The thing is, so far the Dative uses I've came across are simpler uses like "Ich bringe dir das Buch morgen.", or "Er hat mir gesagt das er spät sein verden." or "Es geht mir gut."

Both of those can be translated into English as "to xxx" but that usage was new to me and untranslatable into English, just like "Es geht mir gut" but more complicated (for me).

But I understand now!

Edit: Would "Guck dir den Dieter an" be translated as "Look at Dieter for yourself"?


----------



## Hutschi

> "Guck dir den Dieter an" be translated as "Look at Dieter for yourself"


 
Yes, I think this comes near to the idea. Only "for yourself" is not especially emphasized in German.


----------



## ABBA Stanza

JieXian said:


> Would "Guck dir den Dieter an" be translated as "Look at Dieter for yourself"?


Not really. "Guck dir den Dieter an!" simply means "Look at Peter!".

The dative pronoun ("dir") may appear to be redundant here, but the sentence somehow sounds better with it left in. This topic has been discussed on this forum at least once in the past (see (Scheinbar) redundante Pronomina: Ich habe (mir) ein Auto gekauft, etc). The bad news is that that thread's in German, so you may have some difficulty understanding it. 

Cheers,
Abba


----------



## berndf

ABBA Stanza said:


> Not really. "Guck dir den Dieter an!" simply means "Look at Peter!".


...in the sense of "Have a look at Dieter". If you say "Guck den Dieter an!" it means "Look at Peter!" in the sense of "direct your eyes towards Peter!".


----------



## Hutschi

"Guck dir den Dieter an." can also be figurative:_ Consider Dieter. Compare it with Dieter's handlings._ This depends on context.

"Guck dir den Dieter an, der macht das ganz anders als du."

In this case it is not even necessary that Dieter is here.


----------



## ABBA Stanza

berndf said:


> ...in the sense of "Have a look at Dieter". If you say "Guck den Dieter an!" it means "Look at Peter!" in the sense of "direct your eyes towards Peter!".


Right, but I suspect that it's only a fine difference. For example, when my wife says to me _"Guck dir das an!"_ (i.e., with the dative pronoun) she nevertheless also invariably means I should direct my eyes to whatever she's referring to.

Nevertheless, I get the feeling that there is indeed a subtle difference between _"Guck dir X an!"_ und _"Guck X an!"_. The former doesn't sound so harsh to my ears (i.e. the "dir" seems to milden the imperative, because it sounds like the other person is being asked to do something of their own volition). Do you agree?

Cheers,
Abba


----------



## berndf

The difference is more than subtle. With "dir", "look" is figurative and means "study", "inspect". Without "dir" it is just about the physical act of directing your vision.


----------



## Gernot Back

ABBA Stanza said:


> Nevertheless, I get the feeling that there is indeed a subtle difference between _"Guck dir X an!"_ und _"Guck X an!"_. The former doesn't sound so harsh to my ears (i.e. the "dir" seems to milden the imperative, because it sounds like the other person is being asked to do something of their own volition). Do you agree?


No, I don't think that the extra dative complement does anything with regard to the harshness or mildness of the statement.

The only difference is that by using the extra dative complement I explicitly point out that it would be beneficial for that person to do as suggested.

The dative complement represents the thematic relation of the beneficiary.

Wenn ich etwas oder jemanden nur angucke, so beabsichtige ich nicht unbedingt, einen Nutzen daraus zu ziehen, gucke vielleicht nur zufällig in die Richtung, weil man schließlich immer irgendwohin gucken muss, wenn man die Augen nicht schließen will.

Wenn ich *mir *etwas oder jemanden angucke, so beabsichtige ich jedoch sehr wohl, auch einen Erkenntnisgewinn daraus zu ziehen.


----------



## ABBA Stanza

Thanks, got it now. 

The difficulty for us English speakers is that we don't differentiate between the beneficiary and non-beneficiary cases like German does. Sure, one can say _"Take a good look at Peter"_ instead of merely _"Look at Peter!"_, but it's not necessary to do so, since even the latter can imply an "Erkenntnisgewinn". For example:

_"Look at Peter. He didn't go to University, yet he still managed to get a good job."_

But one would also say _"Look at Peter!"_ for the mere act of directing one's eyes towards him, so both German sentences (i.e., _"Guck dir Peter an!"_ and _"Guck Peter an!"_) translate to the same thing in English (namely, _"Look at Peter!"_).

Cheers,
Abba


----------



## Hutschi

"Guck dir Peter an!" has basically two meanings. 1. sehe ihn an, 2. nimm ihn als Beispiel.
It this second (figurative) meaning also in "Look at Peter!"? If yes, it is more than "Guck Peter an!" if not, it is more restricted as "Guck dir Peter an!". As you showed it is the first.

In case of "Ich gucke Peter an." it does not indicate the same level of attentiveness ("Aufmerksamkeit") as "Ich gucke mir Peter an."


----------



## JieXian

I think it's bad etiquette to reply so late to a solved thread but I have to say:

Thank you for clearing things up for me.


----------



## circlecircle

Hutschi said:


> "Ich gucke mir die schön*en* Mädchen an." -correct
> "Ich gucke die schön*en* Mädchen an." -correct, with a small shift in the meaning.
> With "mir" you look at them to see how they look like. Without "mir" you can look at them to get their attention. It is a kind of staring at them (without the negative connotation).
> 
> "Ich gucke mich die schön*en* Mädchen an." -wrong, except in some dialects.
> 
> Note the dative form of schön, plural.



That's not the dative form of the "schönen Mädchen," it's the accusative form. The verb is a dative reflexive verb, _sich etw. [an]gucken (dat.)_. In nominative and accusative cases, the plural adjective has and "-en" ending when following a plural article (die).  [Edited from the false "zugucken" to "angucken" on 5 May, 2012 thanks to a correction.]

Zum Beispiel: "Ich gucke mir *die schönen Mädchen* an." (Plural form of "Mädchen" in accusative case)

"*Die schönen Mädchen *sprechen über _die jungen Männer_." (Plural from of "Mädchen" in nominative- they are the subject of the sentence; plural form of "Männer" in accusative- they are the direct object.)

When using a _singular feminine subject_ or a _singular feminine object_, one applies only an "-e" ending to the adjective. 

"*Die schöne Frau* winkt mir zu." (Singular feminine subject)
"Ich werde *die schöne Frau* nach ihrem Namen fragen." (Singular feminine direct object)

Then of course, there are the singular feminine dative objects and plural dative objects.

"Letzes Jahr sagte ich *der jungen Frau*, sie sei für mich zu jung." (Singular feminine dative object)
"Doch sie behauptete, ich sage das nur *den hässlichen Frauen*, die ich [ver]treiben wolle." (Plural dative object) [Edited from "wegtreiben" to "vertreiben" on 5 May, 2012 thanks to a correction.]

(Any and all corrections to my grammar and explanations are always welcome if something is falsely formulated.)


Cheers and good luck with German! 

circlecircle


----------



## Thomas W.

circlecircle said:


> ... The verb is a dative reflexive verb, *sich zugucken*(dat.).
> ...
> "Doch sie behauptete, ich sage das nur den hässlichen Frauen, die ich *wegtreiben* wolle." (Plural dative object)
> ...



In the interest of correctness: there is no verb "sich zugucken" in German, only "sich <something/someone> angucken" and "zugucken" (without "sich"). 
Also, "wegtreiben" is not the correct verb in the example above where it should be "vertreiben" instead.
(And it should be "will" instead of "wolle")


----------



## circlecircle

Thomas W. said:


> In the interest of correctness: there is no verb "sich zugucken" in German, only "sich <something/someone> angucken" and "zugucken" (without "sich").
> Also, "wegtreiben" is not the correct verb in the example above where it should be "vertreiben" instead.
> (And it should be "will" instead of "wolle")



Very true regarding the "sich etw. angucken." That was a silly mistake and thanks for looking out.  It should also be noted that the verb "gucken" in any form is considered slang and that "zuschauen" and "anschauen" are better used in the workplace and with professionals. 

As for "wegtreiben," I really wasn't sure how to properly say that he just wanted to drive them away, but this was the closest approximation that I could find. You learn something new every day.

"Wolle" vs. "will" is something I'm willing to dispute, considering that's "indirekte Rede" (Konjunktiv I). 

The way to form "indirekte Rede," which "zeigt, was eine andere Person gesagt, gedacht oder gemeint hat," is to take the *Präsensstamm + e + Personalendung. *(Pons Praxisgrammatik Deutsch als Fremdsprache 2011) In this case, the two verbs that are conjugated in the Konjunktiv I case are "sagen" and "wollen," as "sage" and "wolle." They are instances of indirect speech that report what the woman said. (Regarding the fact that there are not two "-e" endings on each of the words, there is a note in the Pons edition that says, "**-e *nach dem Präsensstamm fällt hier weg. Man hätte sonst zweimal *-e.*") 

I've also just asked a German (because I live in Germany in a house with 4 Germans) who does not dispute my correct use of the konjunktiv. He does agree with your opinion, however, that "vertreiben" would have been a better verb choice. 


Cheers.

circlecircle


----------



## berndf

circlecircle said:


> "Wolle" vs. "will" is something I'm willing to dispute, considering that's "indirekte Rede" (Konjunktiv I).


I agree with you on that.


----------

