# ich weiß, Ihr alle liebt Bücher



## Romono

Hello,

I had a question about this sentence I read in a German children's book: Hallo Freunde, ich weiß, Ihr alle liebt Bücher über Dinosaurier. 

Why isn't the conjugated verb "liebt" at the end of the sentence? I thought verbs  always go at the end of the sentence in a subordinate clause. Is this just one of those rules-ignored-in-spoken-German things?

I had a few other questions about the sentence as well, but it looks like the guidelines state only one question per thread. Oh well. Thanks for any and all of your help!


----------



## Arukami

The problem here is that this isn't a dependent clause. "Ihr alle liebt Bücher" could stand by itself, so it's a independent clause.

And to put a verb at the end of an indenpendet clause, you need to use the verb "tun" (to do) what's very bad German. ("Ihr tut alle Bücher lieben")

Go ahead and ask other questions regarding this sentence.


----------



## Romono

Wow, that was quick. Thanks! Well, one of my other questions had to do with you're talking about: 1) Why is there a comma after "weiß" in the sentence? I actually asked this question on another language forum, and I was told that there is a comma because a 'Nebensatz' follows and if it starts with 'dass' or not makes no difference. But if this isn't a dependent clause, then why the comma?

My other question was: Why is "ihr" capitalized? I was also told that "ihr" and "du" can be capitalized when they are used to directly address someone (in this case: "Freunde"), and this seems right, but what do you think?

Thanks again.


----------



## Arukami

Romono said:


> Wow, that was quick. Thanks! Well, one of my other questions had to do with you're talking about
> : 1) Why is there a comma after "weiß" in the sentence? I actually asked this question on another language forum, and I was told that there is a comma because a 'Nebensatz' follows and if it starts with 'dass' or not makes no difference. But if this isn't a dependent clause, then why the comma?



I may explain that a bit further. 
You could form "ich weiß, dass Ihr alle Bücher liebt" and in this case it would be a Nebensatz, but "Ihr alle liebt Bücher" is a statement and would probably best translated as "You guys sure love books". 
To be honest, I'm not an expert when it comes to comma rules. I put them most of the time where I think it fits ^^' So I think this comma is still here to split the the both sentences because both of them are independet. (somebody else may explain/correct this...)



> My other question was: Why is "ihr" capitalized? I was als told that "ihr" and "du" can be capitalized when they are used to directly address someone (in this case: "Freunde"), and this seems right, but what do you think?



A long time, in terms of politeness, all of these words "Ihr", "Du", "Sie" (2nd person singular and 2nd person plural, but not third person plural) etc. were capitalised. Then this was changed over and over again. Today nobody is really sure how to it right as a result of this. 
 But this way it's correct today:
- du (singular) / ihr (plural) can only be capitalised when you know the person you are addressing personal. So in this book it shouldn't have been capitalised. It's more likely in letters and stuff. See here.
- Sie in contrast will always be capitalised in terms of politeness. See here.


----------



## Romono

> You could form "ich weiß, dass Ihr alle Bücher liebt" and in this case it would be a Nebensatz, but "Ihr alle liebt Bücher" is a statement and would probably best translated as "You guys sure love books".



  Hmm, but couldn’t "ich weiß, dass Ihr alle Bücher liebt" still be formed without the “dass” as in the sentence? It could be similar to how you don’t have to use “that” in English. You could say “Hello friends, I know you guys love books about dinosaurs” instead of “Hello friends, I know _that _you guys love books about dinosaurs.” In this case, wouldn’t it still be a Nebensatz? I just got a response on another language forum, and he says "liebt" isn't at the end of the sentence because, since there is no conjunction “dass,” the word order is the same as if it were a main clause. 



> But this way it's correct today:
> - du (singular) / ihr (plural) can only be capitalised when you know the person you are addressing personal. So in this book it shouldn't have been capitalised. It's more likely in letters and stuff. See here.



Yeah, it does say there that in letters, text-messages, and emails, you can capitalize “ihr.” I should have mentioned this, but in the German children’s book ("Wie man einen Dino besiegt"), the sentence is actually from a letter by a fictional character addressing the readers (as "Freunde"), so that probably explains why it’s capitalized. It also says that, in all forms of text and not just in letters, etc, you can capitalize when you want to address someone personally – in a lot of cases, you would know the person you are addressing personally, but I think it says just if you’re writing specifically to a specific person(s). Or maybe not? I don’t know, it seems kind of like a confusing rule.


----------



## Hutschi

Hi I try to explain the comma rules here.

Ich weiß, dass Ihr alle Bücher liebt. 
The comma separates the main clause "Ich weiß" and the dependend clause "dass ihr alle Bücher liebt".
(This sentence can have two meanings: "ihr alle" and "alle Bücher".)

_Ich weiß, Ihr alle liebt Bücher._
We have two main clauses.
So it could be written:
_Ich weiß. Ihr alle liebt Bücher._
But they are connected by content, to indicate that we use a comma, connecting the two parts.
In this case the first part is a kind of meta text (Ich weiß). The scond part indicates the proposition.
Note that it is not ambiguous. The other meaning is "Ich weiß, Ihr liebt alle Bücher."

I prefer the style with two main clauses in our case, connected by comma.


----------



## Arukami

Romono said:


> Hmm, but couldn’t "ich weiß, dass Ihr alle Bücher liebt" still be formed without the “dass” as in the sentence?



 No. "Ihr alle Bücher liebt" doesn't make sense. Like I said, "Ihr alle liebt Bücher" is an independent clause and therefore the word order in "Ihr alle Bücher liebt" seems just wrong. It sounds like you would say "You all books love" in English. Still, I don't get why people think of "Ihr alle liebt Bücher" / "Ihr liebt alle Bücher" as an dependent clause because it is really just the statement "You guys love books" and this sentence is independent in English as well, isn't it? Care, with the word order "Ihr liebt alle Bücher" this sentence could also mean "You love every book", I just gave this to show that both sentences have the same meaning.


----------



## Syzygy

@Romono: I think you might be trying to read it as "I know you all to love books about dinosaurs." even though the comma is as necessary here as it is in English: "I know, (pause) you all love books about dinosaurs." The second part is not a subclause.


----------



## Romono

I understand what you guys are saying saying, and I appreciate the feedback -- "I know" and "you guys love books" could both be independent clauses, but according to what I was told by another native German speaker, "you guys love books" _is_ a dependent clause in the original sentence because it simply means "that you guys love books." "That you guys love books" is not an independent clause and needs the independent clause, "I know." It's just that the "dass" can be omitted and still understood to be a dependent clause as it implies a "dass.” I also read on a grammar website that this is the case, and that it explains why the verb does not move to the end. This at the moment makes more sense to me. 

   The same is true in English: a noun clause can be used without the introductory word. It can sound cumbersome to use the word “that” in cases like this sentence.

  And Syzygy, in English, a comma would not be necessary in that sentence. Any native English speaker will tell you that it wouldn't make sense to write a sentence like "I know, you all love books about dinosaurs,” since there’s no need to pause after “I know.”


----------



## Syzygy

I understand that there's no comma in English when you understand the second part as a subclause, but doesn't there have to be one if you want the two parts to be understood as two independent clauses, which was my assumption, coming from the German sentence. Similar to the sentence "_You love those books, I know._", just switched around.
 I'm actually not quite convinced yet that the second part can be understood as a subclause here, do you have the link to the site where you read as much? I'm only used to missing introductory words after verbs like "sagen" or "denken". To me, after "wissen", the second part still feels separate.


----------



## Hutschi

Romono said:


> ...
> And Syzygy, in English, a comma would not be necessary in that sentence. Any native English speaker will tell you that it wouldn't make sense to write a sentence like "I know, you all love books about dinosaurs,” since there’s no need to pause after “I know.”



This is the difference to German. In German language a comma does not indicate a pause but a special grammatical structure.
There may be a pause when there is a comma, and not each pause is indicated by a comma in the German language.

After the spelling reform in some cases the comma is optional.
A comma may change the meaning of a sentence.
In such cases it is required to set it properly, even if it is otherwise optional.


----------



## Romono

Syzygy said:
			
		

> I understand that there's no comma in English when you understand the  second part as a subclause, but doesn't there have to be one if you want  the two parts to be understood as two independent clauses, which was my  assumption, coming from the German sentence. Similar to the sentence "_You love those books, I know._", just switched around.
> I'm actually not quite convinced yet that the second part can be  understood as a subclause here, do you have the link to the site where  you read as much? I'm only used to missing introductory words after  verbs like "sagen" or "denken". To me, after "wissen", the second part  still feels separate.



  Okay, I think I see what you mean now. The confusion here stems from whether the author meant to write "I know _that_ you guys love books" (as an independent clause and dependent clause) or instead "I know, you guys love books" (as two independent clauses) without intending to include "that" at all. Honestly, I have no idea, since you could read it both ways, and they would both be grammatically correct. The forum won't let new posters post links, but if you type in Google "German Grammar: Conjunctions," some Georgia university grammar site should come up and that's where I saw something about how the second part of such a sentence would still be a dependent clause (although for some reason, I now can't access the site). But it's also probably at other places if you do a search. On a wordreference.com thread titled "I think that...", for instance, a poster brian writes:



brian said:


> Yes, _daß_, or after the spelling reform _dass_,  is the equivalent to our "that" when introducing a subordinate clause,  but just like in English where we can and do often omit "that," so too  can you often omit "dass," particularly after thinking, believing,  saying, etc. Important note: the difference in German is that word order  changes depending on whether or not you have _dass_.
> 
> 
> _Ich denke*,* dass Kundenbetreuer ein besseres Wort für meine Arbeit ist._ (conjugated verb at the end)
> 
> _Ich denke*,* ein besseres Wort für meine Arbeit ist Kundenbetreuer._ (normal word order)
> 
> *Remember that a comma before "dass" is required.




Any ideas as to how you can tell whether the author meant "I know _that_ you guys love books" or "I know, you guys love books"? Since indeed commas don't indicate pauses, I don't know how you're supposed to know.


----------



## Arukami

He meant it as he wrote it I guess. Why do you even care so hard about this? The meaning to both sentences is exactly the same, so you will understand it anyway. 
You maybe could say that the version without "dass" is more used in spoken German, while a lot of sentences in written German tend to use "dass" cause it may sound a bit more politely and formally.


----------



## Syzygy

I found the site mentioned and it does state explicitly:


> Sometimes, *daß* can be omitted.  In this case, the finite verb does _not_ move to the end.
> 
> 
> Ich weiß, *daß* du das gemacht _hast_.
> Ich weiß, du _hast_ es gemacht.


So, I'll have to take back that the second part can't be read as a subclause. It's just that personally I didn't and wouldn't with the verb "_wissen_" precisely because it can be read as two separate clauses. With other verbs/constructs where you know something more is coming there's no confusion:
"_Ich wette, er ist schneller._", "_Ich habe das Gefühl, er hat keine Lust._"


----------



## Hutschi

Romono said:


> ...
> Any ideas as to how you can tell whether the author meant "I know _that_ you guys love books" or "I know, you guys love books"?



Is there a difference in the meaning in English?

Also, maybe the translation "dependent clause" for "Nebensatz" is usually correct, but maybe it is wrong in our case.
Mostly we spoke about the difference between Hauptsatz and Nebensatz.
These are different in respects of grammar.

If I connect two "Hauptsätze" with a comma, it indicates that there is a stonger relation between both.
"Nebensatz" or "Gliedsatz" (as I learned for "Nebensatz" in school) it rather formally. It is a grammatical construct or description of a subordinated clause. A Nebensatz does not exist without a Hauptsatz.
In this way it is dependend.


----------



## ABBA Stanza

Hutschi said:


> Romono said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Any ideas as to how you can tell whether the author meant "I know _that_ you guys love books" or "I know, you guys love books"?
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a difference in the meaning in English?
Click to expand...

Personally, I would not write "I know, you guys love books". I would either write "I know (that) you guys love books" (without a comma) in the first case, and "I know. You guys love books." (i.e., two separate sentences) in the second.

Similarly, I have always regarded sentences like _"Ich weiß, ihr alle liebt bücher"_ to be equivalent to _"Ich weiß, *dass* ihr alle Bücher liebt"_. In other words, I'm sure that the author meant "I know _that_ you guys love books". Otherwise, I would also expect two sentences in German (i.e., "Ich weiß. Ihr alle liebt Bücher").

Cheers,
Abba


----------



## Gernot Back

Romono said:


> I had a question about this sentence I read in a German children's book: Hallo Freunde, ich weiß, Ihr alle liebt Bücher über Dinosaurier.
> 
> Why isn't the conjugated verb "liebt" at the end of the sentence?


That is, because this as an unintroduced *dependent* clause, where the word order is like in a main clause, but 

_ihr alle liebt Bücher über Dinosaurier_​
... still is a dependant clause of course here, in the function of an accusative complement within the main clause 

_Ich weiß X_.​


----------



## Syzygy

I agree that if you want them to be understood as sentences on their own it's clearer to separate "_Ich weiß._", "_Ich verstehe._", in English maybe "_I see._" by periods from what follows even if it's directly related. Or maybe a semicolon, although I don't know if that's used very much to render spoken language.


----------



## Gernot Back

Syzygy said:


> I agree that if you want them to be understood as sentences on their own it's clearer to separate "_Ich weiß._", "_Ich verstehe._", in English maybe "_I see._"



Are you referring to me, Syzygy?

I explicitly do *not* want these sentences to be understood as sentences of their own; far from it: I want phrase B (_ihr alle liebt Bücher über Dinosaurier_) to be understood as *part* and thus *subordinate *clause of sentence A (_Ich weiß X, _X standing for the fact that all of these guys and gals love books about dinosaurs)!

_Wissen_ is a bi-valent verb in German; it simply wouldn't make sense without an accusative complement, be it a *sub*-clause! That is the reason, why "_Ich weiß_" cannot be a sentence of its own: It is missing a complement without mentioning *what* you know!


----------



## Syzygy

I was actually referring to Abba's last sentence, Gernot. I think both _wissen_ and _verstehen_ do occur on their own in spoken language, though, e.g., "_Ich weiß, ich weiß._" or "_Ich versteh' schon._" That was how I first understood it in the OP's sentence.


----------



## Gernot Back

Syzygy said:


> I think both _wissen_ and _verstehen_ do occur on their own in spoken language, though, e.g., "_Ich weiß, ich weiß._" or "_Ich versteh' schon._"


It never occurs withot context, though! At least by context, it is always clear, *what* you know, so the accusative complement of to know is always there. In the sentence: 





Romono said:


> Hallo Freunde, ich weiß, Ihr alle liebt Bücher über Dinosaurier.


... it is there *explicitly*, as part (sub-clause, unintroduced by a conjunction) of the sentence and therefore separated only by a comma, not by a (semi-)colon or period (full stop).


----------



## Syzygy

Ja, ich weiß.  It's just that before this discussion I was under the impression that it was possible to use a comma for connecting two thoughts like "_Ich weiß. Es ist immer dasselbe._" where the "Ich weiß" emphasizes understanding of the other more than knowledge of a fact. But you have convinced me to join the subclause camp for the OP's context.


----------



## Romono

ABBA Stanza said:
			
		

> Personally, I would not write "I know, you guys love books". I would either write "I know (that) you guys love books" (without a comma) in the first case, and "I know. You guys love books." (i.e., two separate sentences) in the second.
> 
> Similarly, I have always regarded sentences like _"Ich weiß, ihr alle liebt bücher"_ to be equivalent to _"Ich weiß, *dass* ihr alle Bücher liebt"_. In other words, I'm sure that the author meant "I know _that_ you guys love books". Otherwise, I would also expect two sentences in German (i.e., "Ich weiß. Ihr alle liebt Bücher").




  I agree with this as well. It seems more likely he meant "I know _that_ you guys love books," as it sounds clearer. 



Gernot Back said:


> It never occurs withot context, though! At least by context, it is always clear, *what* you know, so the accusative complement of to know is always there. In the sentence: ... it is there *explicitly*, as part (sub-clause, unintroduced by a conjunction) of the sentence and therefore separated only by a comma, not by a (semi-)colon or period (full stop).



Hmm, so in German it would actually be grammatically incorrect to separate "_ich __weiß_" and "_Ihr alle liebt Bücher"_ by a semi-colon or period in the original sentence, because it isn't clear what you know and it needs an accusative complement? And because_ w__issen_ is a bi-valent verb in German? For instance, it would not be correct to write: _"Ich weiß. Ihr alle liebt Bücher_." But in different contexts you could write a sentence like "_Ich weiß."_?

In English, it's different because there could be two separate clauses within the sentence or simply two separate sentences -- "I know, you guys love books" or "I know. You guys love books." -- although it might not be as clear.


----------



## Gernot Back

Romono said:


> Hmm, so in German it would actually be grammatically incorrect to separate "_ich __weiß_" and "_Ihr alle liebt Bücher"_ by a semi-colon (...)


A semicolon or period would not be correct, since both marks usually indicate the separation of phrases on an equal rank. 


			
				Amtliche Regelung said:
			
		

> Mit dem Semikolon kann man gleichrangige (nebengeordnete) Teilsätze oder Wortgruppen voneinander abgrenzen.


http://www.canoo.net/services/GermanSpelling/Amtlich/Interpunktion/pgf80.html

A separation by a colon could be correct though:


			
				Amtliche Regelung said:
			
		

> Mit dem Doppelpunkt kündigt man an, dass etwas Weiterführendes folgt.
> Dies betrifft
> 
> 
> wörtlich wiedergegebene Äußerungen oder Textstellen, wenn der  Begleitsatz oder ein Teil von ihm vorausgeht:_Er sagte: „Ich komme morgen.“  Er sagte zu ihr: „Komm bitte  morgen!“  Er fragte: „Kommst du morgen?“ Sie sagte: „Brauchen Sie die  Unterlagen?“ , und öffnete die Schublade. Die Zeitung schrieb, dass die  Bahn erklären ließ: „Wir haben die feste Absicht, die Strecke  stillzulegen.“ _​
> (...)


http://www.canoo.net/services/GermanSpelling/Amtlich/Interpunktion/pgf81.html



Romono said:


> For instance, it would not be correct to write: _"Ich weiß. Ihr alle liebt Bücher_." But in different contexts you could write a sentence like "_Ich weiß."_?


No, I don't think it would be correct, unless the direct object (accusative complement) of the phrase "_Ich weiß_" were not the following phrase "_Ihr alle liebt Bücher_", but yet another phrase that already had been mentioned in the context before.


----------

