# Obwohl er erkältet ist, ist er aufgetreten.



## Allegro molto

Hallo

Obwohl er *erkältet ist*, ist er aufgetreten.
(aus Mastering German Vocabulary, BARRON’S)

Warum wird 'erkältet ist' im Satz gebraucht?
Ist 'erkältet war' falsch?

Danke schön


----------



## Tonerl

Allegro molto said:


> Hallo
> 
> Obwohl er *erkältet ist*, ist er aufgetreten.
> (aus Mastering German Vocabulary, BARRON’S)
> 
> Warum wird 'erkältet ist' im Satz gebraucht?
> Ist 'erkältet war' falsch?
> 
> Danke schön



*Obwohl er erkältet ist, ist er aufgetreten=Indikativ Präsens Aktiv 
Obwohl er erkältet war, ist er aufgetreten=Indikativ Präteritum Aktiv 
Obwohl er erkältet gewesen ist, ist er aufgetreten=Indikativ Perfekt Aktiv  *


----------



## perpend

Tonerl said:


> *A) Obwohl er erkältet ist, ist er aufgetreten=Indikativ Präsens Aktiv
> B) Obwohl er erkältet war, ist er aufgetreten=Indikativ Präteritum Aktiv
> C) Obwohl er erkältet gewesen ist, ist er aufgetreten=Indikativ Perfekt Aktiv  *



Ich verstehe das so.
A) Sagt man vielleicht wenn man gerade im Moment auf einem Konzert ist.
B) Sagt man am naechsten Tag, aber man beschreibt den Moment vom vorherigen Tag.
C)


----------



## cuore romano

A - Er ist jetzt (zur Zeit) erkältet, trotzdem ist er aufgetreten (gestern, vor 2 Tagen). Eine Erkältung dauert ja länger.
B - Er war irgendwann in der Vergangenheit erkältet, trotzdem ist er damals aufgetreten.
C - Bedeutung wie B, nur dass man hier das Perfekt statt des Präteritums benutzt hat.

In der gesprochenen Sprache benutzt man vorrangig das Perfekt, die Perfekt-Formen der Verben _sein_ und _haben_ bilden dabei allerdings eine Ausnahme.


----------



## perpend

_(Ich sage schon mal Danke, CR!)_


----------



## Schimmelreiter

cuore romano said:


> In der gesprochenen Sprache benutzt man vorrangig das Perfekt, die Perfekt-Formen der Verben _sein_ und _haben_ bilden dabei allerdings eine Ausnahme.


Genau. Darum ist C nicht so gut wie B.


----------



## murathison

Ein weiterer Unterschied zwischen B und C ist, dass die Erkältung im Falle C schon verheilt sein *muss* (obwohl er natürlich schon eine neue Erkältung haben kann ) , während der Künstler bei B heute (zum Zeitpunkt des Satzes) noch erkältet sein kann.

Saludos


----------



## Schimmelreiter

murathison said:


> Ein weiterer Unterschied zwischen B und C ist, dass die Erkältung im Falle C schon verheilt sein *muss* (obwohl er natürlich schon eine neue Erkältung haben kann ) , während der Künstler bei B heute (zum Zeitpunkt des Satzes) noch erkältet sein kann.
> 
> Saludos


Welche grammatikalische Überlegung führt Dich zu Deiner Aussage?


----------



## murathison

Er ist erkältet gewesen 
Ich bin eingeschlafen
Er ist zu spät gewesen

Für mich sind dies alles abgeschlossene Handlungen. Es liegt also keine grammatikalische Überlegung zugrunde, aber mein allgemeines Sprachgefühl lässt mich dies denken. Stimmst Du nicht zu? 

Vielleicht könnte man meine Aussage so ändern, dass zumindest das Konzert zum Zeitpunkt des Satzes zu Ende sein muss. 
Ich bin mir aber relativ sicher, dass die Erkältung in diesem Fall bereits vorrüber ist. Kann aber auch sein, dass ich falsch liege 

Saludos


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Sowohl im Perfekt als auch im Präteritum ist der Nebensatz zum Hauptsatz gleichzeitig. Im Plusquamperfekt wäre er vorzeitig.


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> Sowohl im Perfekt als auch im Präteritum ist der Nebensatz zum Hauptsatz gleichzeitig. Im Plusquamperfekt wäre er vorzeitig.


Es ist in der Tat ein wenig schizophren, aber ich kann Murathisons Sprachgefühl durchaus nachvollziehen. Wenn man _gewesen ist_ statt _war _benutzt spielt ein perfektische Aspekt im Verständnis, zumindest bei Norddeutschen, noch eine Rolle, während bei _aufgetreten ist_ statt _auftrat _i.d.R. auch in Norddeutschland nicht mehr der Fall ist. Bei diesem Verb wird das Perfekt als reine Zeitform aufgefasst, während es bei _sein _immer noch eine Aspektkonnotation hat.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

berndf said:


> Bei diesem Verb wird das Perfekt als reine Zeitform aufgefasst, während es bei _sein _immer noch eine Aspektkonnotation hat.


Nachvollziehen kann ich das als Nichtnorddeutscher auch, aber standardsprachlich braucht's das Plusquamperfekt für Anteriorität, oder?


----------



## murathison

Schimmelreiter said:


> Nachvollziehen kann ich das als Nichtnorddeutscher auch, aber standardsprachlich braucht's das Plusquamperfekt für Anteriorität, oder?



Naja gut, aber ich denke, diese Leute lernen Deutsch, um mit Deutschen zu reden, nicht um Grammatikbücher zu schreiben. "Er war erkältet gewesen" wird einem nur schiefe Blicke einbringen


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> Nachvollziehen kann ich das als Nichtnorddeutscher auch, aber standardsprachlich braucht's das Plusquamperfekt für Anteriorität, oder?


Von _Anteriorität_ hat Murathison in seiner ursprünglichen Aussage in #7 ja auch nichts gesagt. Es hat nur behauptet, dass _gewesen ist_ für die Jetztzeit des Satzes impliziert, dass keine Erkältung mehr besteht.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

berndf said:


> Von _Anteriorität_ hat Murathison in seiner ursprünglichen Aussage in #7 ja auch nichts gesagt. Es hat nur behauptet, dass _gewesen ist_ für die Jetztzeit des Satzes  impliziert, dass keine Erkältung mehr besteht.


Dann kann ich das  Argument überhaupt nicht nachvollziehen:





murathison said:


> Ein  weiterer Unterschied zwischen B und C ist, dass die Erkältung im Falle C  schon verheilt sein *muss* (obwohl er natürlich schon eine neue Erkältung haben kann ) , während der Künstler bei B heute (zum Zeitpunkt des Satzes) noch erkältet sein kann.


Zur Erinnerung:





perpend said:


> Tonerl said:
> 
> 
> 
> *B) Obwohl er erkältet war, ist er aufgetreten=Indikativ Präteritum Aktiv
> C) Obwohl er erkältet gewesen ist, ist er aufgetreten=Indikativ Perfekt Aktiv  *
Click to expand...

Bei Präteritum (!) soll gelten, dass der Künstler _heute (zum Zeitpunkt des Satzes) noch erkältet sein kann_?


----------



## murathison

Schimmelreiter said:


> Bei Präteritum (!) soll gelten, dass der Künstler _heute (zum Zeitpunkt des Satzes) noch erkältet sein kann_?



Ja.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Denklogisch _ka__nn_ er natürlich noch erkältet sein, aber der Satz hat nichts damit zu tun.

Wenn ich _Gestern war ich im Kino _sage, _ka__nn_ ich auch noch immer im Kino sein, aber (ich wiederhole mich ) der Satz hat nichts damit zu tun.


----------



## murathison

Schimmelreiter said:


> Denklogisch _ka__nn_ er natürlich noch erkältet sein, aber der Satz hat nichts damit zu tun.
> 
> Wenn ich _Gestern war ich im Kino _sage, _ka__nn_ ich auch noch immer im Kino sein, aber (ich wiederhole mich ) der Satz hat nichts damit zu tun.



Was meinst Du mit "der Satz hat damit nichts zu tun"?

Genau das meinte ich mit meinem ersten Post!  Wenn man nun sagt "Ich bin gestern im Kino gewesen", dann ist man heute nicht mehr im Kino!


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> Denklogisch _ka__nn_ er natürlich noch erkältet sein, aber der Satz hat nichts damit zu tun.


Genau darum geht es. Wenn ein Satz _mit etwas nichts zu tun hat_, dann kann dies sein oder auch nicht, d.h. der Satz schränkt die Möglichkeiten nicht ein.

Der perfektische Aspekt hat aber etwas damit zu tun, ob ein Zustand noch besteht oder nicht. Die Variante mit _gewesen sein_ schränkt also den Bereich der Möglichkeiten in einer Art und Weise ein, wie es die Variante mit _war _nicht tut.

Ob diese Unterscheidung im modernen Deutsch belastbar ist, ist eine andere Sache. Ich habe da meine Zweifel. Nachvollziehen kann ich sie aber.

PS: Gekreuzt mit #18.


----------



## murathison

Was meinst Du mit belastbar?


----------



## cuore romano

murathison said:


> Naja gut, aber ich denke, diese Leute lernen Deutsch, um mit Deutschen zu reden, nicht um Grammatikbücher zu schreiben. *"Er war erkältet gewesen" wird einem nur schiefe Blicke einbringen*



Falsch - Im Ruhrpott z.B. ist das völlig normal.


----------



## berndf

murathison said:


> Was meinst Du mit belastbar?


Das dieses Verständnis intersubjektiv reproduzierbar ist. D.h., dass Du dich hinreichend darauf verlassen kannst, dass wenn Du als Sprecher diese Unterscheidung triffst, sie vom Hörer auch so verstanden wird.


----------



## murathison

cuore romano said:


> Falsch - Im Ruhrpott z.B. ist das völlig normal.



Okay, ich bitte um Entschuldigung. Ich finde, es hört sich blöd an, aber in anderen Teilen Deutschlands kann das natürlich anders sein.


----------



## berndf

murathison said:


> Naja gut, aber ich denke, diese Leute lernen Deutsch, um mit Deutschen zu reden, nicht um Grammatikbücher zu schreiben. "Er war erkältet gewesen" wird einem nur schiefe Blicke einbringen


*Wenn *es um Anteriorität geht (worum es Dir, wie wir geklärt haben, in diesem Fall nicht geht) dann ist dies (=Plusquamperfekt) standardsprachlich allerdings in Ordnung und sogar geboten, und zwar regionsunabhängig:
_Zwei Tage bevor er auftrat war er noch erkältet gewesen._


----------



## cuore romano

Ich hätte gern mal eine Erklärung - ich blick nämlich langsam nicht mehr durch:



> Wenn ich _Gestern war ich im Kino _sage, _ka__nn_ ich auch noch immer im Kino sein



Ist jetzt nicht ernst gemeint, oder?


----------



## murathison

cuore romano said:


> Ich hätte gern mal eine Erklärung - ich blick nämlich langsam nicht mehr durch:
> 
> 
> 
> Ist jetzt nicht ernst gemeint, oder?



Vielleicht kannst du ja deine Theorie mit Beispielen erklären  Ich glaube schon, dass das ernst gemeint war...


----------



## cuore romano

Welche Theorie denn?
Wir haben gestern in Abgrenzung zu heute, und zwar völlig unabhängig von Perfekt und/oder Präteritum (s. # 4).
Wenn ich sagen will, dass etwas immer noch andauert, dann benutze ich _seit_.


----------



## murathison

cuore romano said:


> Welche Theorie denn?
> Wir haben gestern in Abgrenzung zu heute, und zwar völlig unabhängig von Perfekt und/oder Präteritum (s. # 4).
> Wenn ich sagen will, dass etwas immer noch andauert, dann benutze ich _seit_.



Dass du es so benutzt, heißt nicht, dass es nicht noch anders geht 

Die Theorie, warum du glaubst, dass Schimmelreiter das nicht ernst meinte.


----------



## berndf

cuore romano said:


> Ich hätte gern mal eine Erklärung - ich blick nämlich langsam nicht mehr durch:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wenn ich _Gestern war ich im Kino _sage, _ka__nn_ ich auch noch immer im Kino sein
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ist jetzt nicht ernst gemeint, oder?
Click to expand...

Syntaktisch und semantisch: _ja_. Nur pragmatische nicht, weil man nicht davon ausgeht, dass sich jemand mehrere Tage ununterbrochen im Kino aufhält. Bei der Aussage _Gestern war er in München_ gibt es ohne Kontext keinen Anhaltspunkt, ob er es immer noch ist. -- Höchstens sehr indirekt, weil Adverbiale wie _auch schon_ oder _bereits_ fehlen.


----------



## cuore romano

Na dann...


----------



## Tonerl

*Um die allgemeine Verwirrung perfekt zu machen, hier noch eine kleine "Zugabe":
**
erweiterter Infinitiv (Zustandsreflexiv )*
*erkältet gewesen zu sein  
**Er schien erkältet gewesen zu sein, trat aber trotzdem auf.*
*Obwohl er erkältet gewesen zu sein schien, trat er trotzdem auf.*

*Perfekt (Indikativ)*
*er ist erkältet gewesen   *
*Obwohl er erkältet gewesen ist, trat er trotzdem auf !*

*Plusquamperfekt (Indikativ )*
*er war erkältet gewesen  *
*Obwohl er erkältet gewesen war, trat er trotzdem auf !

Deutsche Sprache, schwierige Sprache !
*


----------



## Schimmelreiter

_erkältet sein _ist doch kein Zustandsreflexiv, sondern einfach Adjektiv + Kopula.

_gewaschen/rasiert/gekämmt sein _ist Zustandsreflexiv, da Agens und Patiens in eins fallen: _
Er hat sich gewaschen/rasiert/gekämmt. > Er ist gewaschen/rasiert/gekämmt._

Demgegenüber hat _Er hat sich erkältet _nur ein Agens, aber kein Patiens: Niemand ist _​*erkältet worden. _In _Er ist/war erkältet (gewesen) _ist _erkältet_ daher kein Partizip II, sondern ein schlichtes prädikatives Adjektiv.


----------



## berndf

Es gibt schon ein reflexives Verb _sich erkälten_. Auch wenn ich mit Dir übereinstimme, dass _erkältet _als deverbales Adjektiv analysiert werden sollte, ist die Interpretation als Zustandsreflexiv doch nicht vollkommen abwegig.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

berndf said:


> Es gibt schon ein reflexives Verb _sich erkälten_. Auch wenn ich mit Dir übereinstimme, dass _erkältet _als deverbales Adjektiv analysiert werden sollte, ist die Interpretation als Zustandsreflexiv doch nicht vollkommen abwegig.


Doch. 

Das Zustandsreflexiv bezeichnet jenen Sonderfall des Zustandspassivs, in dem Agens und Patiens identisch sind. Zunächst ist

_Er ist rasiert._

ein Zustandspassiv wie jedes andere auch. Wenn pragmatisch klar ist, dass "er" zugleich Rasierender und Rasiertwerdender war, also von niemand anders rasiert worden ist, ist es ein Zustandsreflexiv: _Er hat sich rasiert. > Er ist ("von sich") rasiert._ 


Wenn man _sich erkältet _hat, hat man aber niemanden erkältet: Man ist nicht "von sich" erkältet. Das bringt mich zu dem Schluss, dass 

_Er ist erkältet._

kein Zustandsreflexiv ist.


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> in dem Agens und Patiens identisch sind


Das ist die allgemeine Definition eines reflexiven Verbs und _sich erkälten_ ist eindeutig eines.

Und die Definition von _Zustandsreflexiv _ist ein _aus einem reflexiven Verb gebildeter Zustandspassiv_. Formal erfüllt _erkältet sein_ die Bedingung dieser Definition.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Reflexive Verben bilden kein Zustandsreflexiv. Reflexiv gebrauchte transitive Verben bilden ein Zustandsreflexiv: 





Schimmelreiter said:


> _gewaschen/rasiert/gekämmt sein _ist Zustandsreflexiv, da Agens und Patiens in eins fallen: _
> Er hat sich gewaschen/rasiert/gekämmt. > Er ist gewaschen/rasiert/gekämmt._




In meinem Beispiel findest du die transitiven Verben _waschen/rasieren/kämmen_, die im Zustandspassiv offen lassen, wer einen _gewaschen/rasiert/gekämmt_ hat. Hat man _sich selbst __gewaschen/rasiert/gekämmt _(reflexiver Gebrauch des transitiven Verbs), dann ist das Zustandspassiv ein Zustandsreflexiv: _Er ist gewaschen/rasiert/gekämmt.


_Zum Unterschied von den transitiven Verben _waschen/rasieren/kämmen_ sind etwa _sich erkälten _und _sich bemühen _reflexive Verben und können daher kein Zustandsreflexiv bilden:

_Er ist bemüht.
_
ist ein schlichtes prädikatives Adjektiv.


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> Reflexive Verben bilden kein Zustandsreflexiv.


Das ist aber die Definition von _Zustandsreflexiv_. Bei einem transitiven Verb sagt man _Zustandspassiv _und bei einem reflexiven Verb _Zustandsreflexiv_ ansonsten ist es formal dasselbe. Ich habe diese Nomenklatur nicht erfunden. Siehe die Beispiele hier. Alles (_sich verloben, sich verlieben, sich erholen_) rein reflexive Verben und nicht reflexiv gebrauchte transitive Verben (es gibt auch ein transitives _verloben_; das ist aber ein anderes Verb).


----------



## Schimmelreiter

OK. Vielen Dank. Diese Definition ist mir neu. Mir war nur die Sache mit den reflexiv gebrauchten Transitiva bekannt, die bei canoo auch vorkommt:

Zustandsreflexiv:
_Das Kind ist gewaschen._  «  _Das Kind hat sich gewaschen.
_Zustandspassiv:
_Das Kind ist gewaschen._  «  _Die Mutter hat das Kind gewaschen.


_Darf ich so kühn sein zu erwähnen, dass sich mir nicht erschließt, welcher Erkenntnisgewinn damit verbunden ist, wenn man _verliebt _in _der verliebte Junge _als Adjektiv, aber in _Der Junge ist verliebt _​als Partizip II analysiert.


----------



## berndf

Kann ich auf Anhieb auch nicht sagen. Daher mein Disclaimer "Ich habe diese Nomenklatur nicht erfunden". Andererseits: Wofür braucht man denn das Konzept des _Zustandspassivs_ überhaupt? Warum soll man_ das gelesene Buch_ und _das Buch ist gelesen _unterschiedlich  analysieren? Wenn man das eine Konzept definiert, muss man es wohl durch  das andere vervollständigen, um eine konsistente Systematik zu erhalten.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

berndf said:


> Warum soll man_ das gelesene Buch_ und _das Buch ist gelesen _unterschiedlich  analysieren?


Das sind ja auch beides Partizipien. Das gelesene Buch ist von jemandem gelesen worden. 

Aber der verliebte Junge ist von niemandem verliebt worden.


----------



## berndf

Partizipien sind es in jedem Fall. Dass Partizipien unterschiedlicher Verbklassen unterschiedliche Semantiken haben ist ja zunächst nichts ungewöhnliches. Die Frage ist, warum man sie das eine Mal als Verbaladjektive und das andere Mal als Deverbaladjektive analysieren soll. Und diese Frange stellt sich symmetrisch.


----------



## wandle

Schimmelreiter said:


> Aber der verliebte Junge ist von niemandem verliebt worden.


An entertaining debate. English is relatively sparing in its use of  reflexive verbs, but I have always thought to myself, when encountering  them in other languages, that the concept of a reflexive verb is  precisely that one does something to oneself, even though factually  speaking there is no separate agent. In other words, a reflexive verb  such as _sich verlieben_ or 'to enamour oneself' involves both a conceptual agent and a conceptual patient.

How otherwise is the reflexive usage to be understood?


----------



## murathison

wandle said:


> An entertaining debate. English is relatively sparing in its use of  reflexive verbs, but I have always thought to myself, when encountering  them in other languages, that the concept of a reflexive verb is  precisely that one does something to oneself, even though factually  speaking there is no separate agent. In other words, a reflexive verb  such as _sich verlieben_ or 'to enamour oneself' involves both a conceptual agent and a conceptual patient.
> 
> How otherwise is the reflexive usage to be understood?



Hello wandle,


In german, we use also reflexive verbs to express something which has happened to ourselves, but on which we had little or no influence:

sich verlieben
sich weh tun
sich verletzen
sich vertun
sich versprechen

I am not a grammar expert but this seems to be a possible explanation. 



Greets
murathison


----------



## wandle

Hello,*murathison*.  I am sure that is a possible reason for the use of the reflexive, but the debate between *Schimmelreiter* and *berndf* is how to analyse it, and in particular whether cases where no separate agency exists in a factual sense should be distinguished in analysis from those in which a real agency is involved.

Outside this forum, I had never heard of _Zustandspassiv_ or _Zustandsreflexiv_, but I am inclined to follow the view of *berndf*, as it agrees with my own conception of reflexive verbs.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> An entertaining debate. English is relatively sparing in its use of  reflexive verbs, but I have always thought to myself, when encountering  them in other languages, that the concept of a reflexive verb is  precisely that one does something to oneself, even though factually  speaking there is no separate agent. In other words, a reflexive verb  such as _sich verlieben_ or 'to enamour oneself' involves both a conceptual agent and a conceptual patient.
> 
> How otherwise is the reflexive usage to be understood?


That description pertains to the English reflexive verbs as English had lost the original concept of reflexive verbs a long time ago and the modern reflexive verbs are in effect transitive verbs where agent and patient happen to be identical. In German and many other IE languages, transitive verbs are best understood as a separate category of verbs on the same level as transitive and intransitive verbs. Reflexive usage of transitive verbs with incidental identity (I can wash other people but also myself) of agent and patent exist in German as well but they are only one of many semantics of reflexive verbs. They are often verbs where the conceptual distinction of agent and patient doesn't make sense or cannot be determined. English would often use intransitive verbs here with a special meaning, e.g._ to sit down = sich setzen_. Semantically, _to sit down_ is an "autocausative": it describes a state transition from standing to sitting and does not describe the state of sitting itself (which is the proper meaning of _to sit_) but without a clear separation of agent and patient. They are not incidentally identical but inseparable by the very semantics of the verb. German uses in this case the reflexive form (_sich setzen_) of the causative derivation _setzen_ (_to set_).


----------



## wandle

berndf said:


> They are often verbs where the conceptual distinction of agent and  patient doesn't make sense or cannot be determined. English would often  use intransitive verbs here, i.e._ to sit down = sich setzen_.
> ...
> They  are not incidentally identical but inseparable by the very semantics of  the verb. German uses in this case the reflexive form (_sich setzen_) of the causative derivation _setzen_ (_to set_).


           Yes, the German reflexive expresses by a different method the same idea as the intransitive verb in English. I have always understood such reflexives as involving an agent and patient which can be distinguished conceptually though not in reality.

I chose the English 'to enamour oneself' as a direct equivalent to (though not usually to be recommended as a translation of) _sich verlieben_ in order to illustrate that.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> Yes, the German reflexive expresses by a different method the same idea as the intransitive verb in English.


Autocausative as a concept exists in English too. It is just expressed by separate intransitive verbs that are created to replace the lost reflexive causative. I am sure you have realized that _sit_ in _I sit on the bench_ and _I sit down on the bench_ have different meaning.


wandle said:


> I have always understood such reflexives as involving an agent and patient which can be distinguished conceptually though not in reality.


Definitely not. Transitive meaning with reflexive use and intrinsically reflexive meaning are well distinguished. The former (agent=patent) would mean that you lift yourself up with you hands and put yourself on the bench. The latter (no conceptual distinction between agent and patent) means sitting down. If the former were practically meaningful (which in a literal sense it obviously isn't) than you would express it as _sich selbst an eine Stelle_ setzen to distinguish this meaning from _sich setzen_. (In figurative meanings of _setzen _this distinction can be meaningful. E.g.: _Er setzte sich an die Spitze der Bewegung_ vs. _Er setzte sich selbst an die Spitze der Bewegung_.)


----------



## wandle

'I sit on the bench' may mean 'I sit down (seat myself) on the bench' or 'I am sitting (seated) on the bench'.

I still see a conceptual distinction between agent and patient in _sich verlieben_, even though it corresponds to an intransitive usage such as 'fall in love'. There is no duality of agent and patient at the factual level, but the expression entails just such a duality at the conceptual level. 

Otherwise, in my view, we must deny significance to the individual words and allow meaning only to the phrase. This seems to me incompatible with our ordinary understanding and use of the individual terms and language in general.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

wandle said:


> I still see a conceptual distinction between agent and patient in _sich verlieben_


If you apply the agent-patient concept to _sich erkälten _(see the OP)_/sich verlieben_, there must be the underlying transitive concept _jemanden erkälten (to make someone suffer from a cold)/jemanden verlieben (to make someone love). _Thence it would follow that if you are _erkältet/verliebt_, you have been made, by yourself, to suffer from a cold/to love. Neither, however, does one cause oneself to suffer from a cold but it just so happens one does, nor does one cause oneself to love but it just so happens one does.


----------



## wandle

Schimmelreiter said:


> Neither, however, does one cause oneself to suffer from a cold but it just so happens one does, nor does one cause oneself to love but it just so happens one does.


That is a factual point: a point about reality. At the factual level, it is correct. 


> If you apply the agent-patient concept to _sich erkälten _(see the OP)_/sich verlieben_, there must be the underlying transitive concept _jemanden erkälten (to make someone suffer from a cold)/jemanden verlieben (to make someone love)._


This is a conceptual point: a point about language. At the conceptual level, it is correct.

How can it be that we use language with one set of implications to represent facts with a contrary set of implications?
That is how language works: it is due to the inescapable necessity of using symbols which have no intrinsic connection with what they express and to the contingent process by which complex language is built up from simple symbols.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

So what if there are reflexives to which the agent-patient concept is inapplicable?

I've found one to which it is applicable: _sich bemühen. __Darf ich Sie bemühen? Bemühen Sie sich doch selbst!_


----------



## wandle

Schimmelreiter said:


> So what if there are reflexives to which the agent-patient concept is inapplicable?


I am afraid I do not see the point of that. My proposition is that it is always applicable at the conceptual level, but not always at the factual level.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> Otherwise, in my view, we must deny significance to the individual words and allow meaning only to the phrase. This seems to me incompatible with our ordinary understanding and use of the individual terms and language in general.


No. Transitive and reflexive verbs are lexically distinct, just like transitive and intransitive verbs are different words with their own meaning even if they are spelled the same and come from the same source; compare _I run home_ and _I run a business_. It is not god given that there are only two types of verbs, _transitive _and _intransitive_. In German there are three. 

It seems to me that you are mistaking an incidental feature of the English language (that all verbs must be either transitive or intransitive) for a logical necessity.


----------



## wandle

berndf said:


> It seems to me that you are mistaking an incidental feature of the English language (that all verbs must be either transitive or intransitive) for a logical necessity.


I have never suggested that and it is not my view.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

wandle said:


> I have never suggested that


Haven't you implicitly, by explaining reflexives as conceptually auto-transitive: agent acting on patient?


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> I have never suggested that and it is not my view.


I think you did this when you said:





wandle said:


> Otherwise, in my view, we must deny significance  to the individual words and allow meaning only to the phrase. This seems  to me incompatible with our ordinary understanding and use of the  individual terms and language in general.


This means that you are denying the possibility that transitive and reflexive verbs can be lexically distinct. I suppose here of course that in other cases you accept that homonym words can be lexically distinct.


----------



## wandle

Schimmelreiter said:


> Haven't you implicitly, by explaining  reflexives as conceptually auto-transitive: agent acting on  patient?


No, because my observation is confined to the conceptual form of the reflexive verb: I have not applied it to the facts underlying this type of expression or to other types of expression.


----------



## wandle

berndf said:


> This means that you are denying the possibility that transitive and reflexive verbs can be lexically distinct.


I do not see how that follows, nor indeed exactly what it implies.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

wandle said:


> my observation is confined to the conceptual form of the reflexive verb


That it looks auto-transitive is a truism. The point is: Its meaning cannot be found by saying: Somebody, as agent, is doing something to himself, as patient. It's truly an independent third concept, besides transitive and intransitive.

_Wenn sich jemand beschwert, ist dann nicht er beschwert, sondern jemand anders. _


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> No, because my observation is confined to the conceptual form of the reflexive verb: I have not applied it to the facts underlying this type of expression or to other types of expression.


Exactly. You are denying the concept of reflexivity a status of autonomy you accept with other concepts. I.e. you effectively require that the concept of reflexivity can only exist, if it is reducible to other grammatical concepts and cannot be a basic concept in its own right. But this is totally arbitrary. Different languages have different sets of basic and derived concepts.

To give you an example where this happens the other way round: English has tense and aspect as separate basic concepts: you have the aspects simple, progressive and perfect which apply to all tenses. German has only one concept here: tense, or actually an inseparable mixture of tense and aspect. That is why it is so difficult for a German to know when to use past tense and when to use present perfect in English because the underlying concepts are not present in German.


----------



## wandle

berndf said:


> you effectively require that the concept of reflexivity can only exist, if it is reducible to other grammatical concepts and cannot be a basic concept in its own right.


No; that is much too big a statement. It is reading much more into my proposition than it is saying, which is simply that an expression such as _sich verlieben_ or 'to enamour oneself' expresses its meaning (whatever that may be) through the concept of agent and patient (however unreal that may be in fact).


----------



## berndf

You are just proven me right. Agent and patient are concepts that are peculiar to the concept of transitivity. By analysing reflexive verbs with the concepts of agent and patient you are effectively reducing the concept of reflexivity to that of transitivity. There are of course classes of reflexive verbs where the concepts of agent and patient are defined. But this is not necessarily so. There are classes of reflexive verbs where these categories are simply undefined.


----------



## wandle

berndf said:


> Agent and patient are concepts that are peculiar to the concept of transitivity. By analysing reflexive verbs with the concepts of agent and patient you are effectively reducing the concept of reflexivity to that of transitivity.


That argument depends on the definition of the terms used. As I do not agree with the conclusion, I doubt the definitions.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> That argument depends on the definition of the terms used. As I do not agree with the conclusion, I doubt the definitions.



If you take your own definitions of the concepts and not the definitions as they are made by the language you are trying to analyse, I am afraid you will not properly understand the logic of that language.


----------



## wandle

Again, that is going much further than I have said or implied.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> Again, that is going much further than I have said or implied.



If you really want to understand reflexive verbs you have to go that much further. If not, that's fine with me too.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Might it be that reflexivity is akin to passivity?

_Ich verliebe mich. - Amore afficior.
Ich erkälte mich. - Frigore afficior.
Ich irre mich. - Errore afficior.

_The Latin is not an idiomatic translation but only a tool for explanation.


----------



## berndf

I have been thinking about the relationship between mediopassive voice an reflexivity.

In these Latin constructions, the passive voice is obviously used to express the lack of an actor. Do you know how this is expressed in Ancient Greek where the mediopassive still exists?


----------



## wandle

berndf said:


> If you take your own definitions of the concepts and not the definitions as they are made by the language you are trying to analyse, I am afraid you will not properly understand the logic of that language.





wandle said:


> Again, that is going much further than I have said or implied.





berndf said:


> If you really want to understand reflexive verbs you have to go that much further.


So, whether I accept that over-interpretation in post 64 or reject it, either way I am equally in error!


berndf said:


> Agent and patient are concepts that are peculiar to the concept of transitivity.


Why should that be so? 
We can distinguish clearly between a real and a merely conceptual duality of agent and patient. What applies to the one need not apply to the other.


----------



## wandle

berndf said:


> Do you know how this is expressed in Ancient Greek where the mediopassive still exists?


 The basic sense of the Greek middle voice is that of doing something for or in relation to oneself. That is on the face of it a reflexive idea.
However, this may be enlarging the discussion even further.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> We can distinguish clearly between a real and a merely conceptual duality of agent and patient.


Yes, that is correct. And in some classes of German reflexive verbs either agent or patient or both are conceptually undefined. That is what SR tried to explain. 

In _sich verlieben_ the agent is conceptually undefined. The sentence _A verliebt B_ is not only a sentence with no real world scenario to which it would apply. It is sequence of words to which no meaning is attached.

This particular class of verbs that are expressed through the German reflexive (and to my knowledge also by the Greek mediopassive, but I wouldn't bet on it) is called _decausative_. Decausative verbs express "abstract causation" (it just happens; nobody is _doing_ it) in explicit contrast to causation by an agent.

PS: SR and I agree on all this. Where we differed in our discussion was just if the concept of "Zustandsreflexiv" applies to all reflexive verbs (my position) or if it is excluded for decausative reflexive verbs (his position).


----------



## wandle

berndf said:


> (a) In sich verlieben the agent is conceptually undefined.
> (b) Decausative verbs express "abstract causation" (it just happens; nobody is doing it) in explicit contrast to causation by an agent.


Here we seem to have a contradiction.
Sentence (a) apparently means that the expression _er verliebt sich_ involves an agent.
Sentence (b) apparently means it does not.


> PS: SR and I agree on all this. Where we differed in our discussion was just if the concept of "Zustandsreflexiv" applies to all reflexive verbs (my position) or if it is confined to decausative reflexive verbs (his position).


And my comment on that difference means simply that because every reflexive verb by definition involves at least a conceptual agent and patient I am inclined to agree with the former position rather than the latter.

That (and not the iconoclasm attributed to me) is the point of my contribution to this thread.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> Here we seem to have a contradiction.
> Sentence (a) apparently means that the expression _er verliebt sich_ involves an agent.
> Sentence (b) apparently means it does not.


I said in (a) "conceptually undefined" meaning the verb "does not evoke the concept of an agent".



wandle said:


> ...because every reflexive verb by definition involves at least a conceptual agent and patient...


The whole discussion we have had is exclusively about us explaining why this statement is false. At the same time you repeat it and deny you have said it. C'mon.

The statement would only be valid for decausative reflexives, if the principle of causation (no effect without cause) were a principle of the German language but it isn't. The construct is agnostic in this respect. It does not deny the possible existence of an (any!) ultimate cause but it doesn't presuppose it either.


----------



## wandle

All that is far outside the scope of my modest comments. 

Any expression such as _er verliebt sich_ contains, regardless of meaning, a grammatical subject and object: that is, a conceptual (theoretical, supposed, imaginary) agent and patient. That seems to me very basic and elementary.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> All that is far outside the scope of my modest comments.
> 
> Any expression such as _er verliebt sich_ contains, regardless of meaning, a grammatical subject and object: that is, a conceptual (theoretical, supposed, imaginary) agent and patient. That seems to me very basic and elementary.


Ok, the whole thing seems to boil down to a terminological confusion:

Subject and object are different concepts from agent and patent. They correspond in this way only for active voice transitive verbs.

In passive voice, the patient is the subject and the agent is, in German as well as in English, represented by an optional prepositional adjunct.

In mediopassive it is again different. I am not an expert on any language that has the mediopassive but it is my understanding that in some languages the mediopassive can have decausative meaning and the subject represents for such verbs the patient while the agent is not defined as a concept. German uses reflexive verbs for this.

Thank you very much for the discussion. It forced me to express and formalize grammatical concepts which, for me as a native speaker, existed only as intuitive ones before.


----------



## wandle

berndf said:


> Subject and object are different concepts from agent and patent. They correspond in this way only for active voice transitive verbs.


As I see it, whenever the verb is active, subject and object are respectively agent and patient. Transitivity is a separate matter.
Otherwise, what does it mean to call a verb 'active'? That category is broader than 'transitive'.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

wandle said:


> what does it mean to call a verb 'active'?


Looks like reflexives are inverse deponents: Looking active but being passive: 





Schimmelreiter said:


> _Ich verliebe mich. - Amore afficior._


>>>
_Ich habe mich verliebt./Ich bin verliebt. - Amore affectus sum._


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> As I see it, whenever the verb is active, subject and object are respectively agent and patient. Transitivity is a separate matter.
> Otherwise, what does it mean to call a verb 'active'? That category is broader than 'transitive'.


That is only true for verbs that have an active voice. In English, this is true for all verbs. But it neither is in German nor in Latin, nor in Greek. The reasons are related. Those verbs that don't have an active voice are reflexive in German (bacause they don't have non-reflexive uses as the active-passive distinction is conceptually not defined for reflexive-only verbs) and deponent verbs in Latin and Greek are (as historians of language believe) derived from original mediopassive-only verbs.


----------



## wandle

So do I understand you to say that the following analysis (which seems basic to me) is not correct?


Subject
Active verb
Object
*er*
*verliebt*
*sich*


----------



## Schimmelreiter

_subject - reflexive verb - no object_

Read what I wrote about reflexives being inverse deponents in that they only look active but are effectively passive? He doesn't actively _verlieben _anybody when he _verliebt sich._


----------



## wandle

A deponent such as Latin _loquor_ has passive form but active meaning 'I speak'.

What is the passive meaning of _er verliebt sich_?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Hence my calling it an _inverse _deponent: _He is made to love. _(agent undefined)

Back to the OP:

_Er erkältet sich. - He is made to have a cold.
Er ist erkältet. - He has been made to have a cold.

_Again: agent undefined


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> So do I understand you to say that the following analysis (which seems basic to me) is not correct?
> 
> 
> SubjectActive verbObject*er**verliebt**sich*




Most grammarians would analyse _sich _for this class of reflexive verbs (_"echte" reflexive Verben_) as a semantically empty but syntactically required _verb complement_ (_Ergänzung_). It would then be a type of verb complement in its own right and neither a subject nor an object (link). But I don't have strong opinions there If somebody called it an object I wouldn't start an argument.

I would simply write "verb". "Active" or "passive" have no meaning for these verbs.


----------



## wandle

What is wrong with saying that _er verliebt sich_ has (a) the form of subject - active verb - object and (b) the intransitive meaning 'he falls in love'? 

We usually think that the ostensible meaning 'he makes himself love' is unreal and therefore the sentence calls for a different analysis (though perhaps if we think about what is going on physically or biologically the ostensible meaning may be closer to the truth than is usually supposed).

However, what sense can it have to postulate the meaning 'he is made to love' which corresponds neither with the ostensible form of the grammar nor with the underlying reality of life (unless we say that there is a divinity at work)?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

We don't know what's at work (agent undefined or, rather, undefinable). So it's purely semantic passivity. Were the agent definable (whether defined or not), formal passivity _(*Er wird verliebt)_ would be possible. As the eventive passive is ruled out, _Er ist verliebt _is a stative reflexive rather than a stative passive. Grammarians seem to opine that unless there's an eventive passive, we'd better not call the stative thing a stative passive.


----------



## wandle

There is no doubt that the subject _er_ is involved. As the semantic message is about change of state rather than state, it seems more accurate to me to call the effective meaning intransitive, conveyed through an ostensible transitive formula.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

wandle said:


> There is no doubt that the subject _er_ is involved. As the semantic message is about change of state rather than state, it seems more accurate to me to call the effective meaning intransitive, conveyed through an ostensible transitive formula.


If it's intransitive, how do you explain _Er ist verliebt/erkältet_? He's been put into that state by an undefined agent.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> We usually think that the ostensible meaning 'he makes himself love'


You might. We (native speakers) do not "usually think" that this is the "ostensible meaning":


berndf said:


> The sentence _A verliebt B_ is not only a  sentence with no real world scenario to which it would apply. It is  sequence of words to which no meaning is attached.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

wandle said:


> We usually think that the ostensible meaning 'he makes himself love'


That would bar inanimate things from appearing in sentences with reflexive verbs: _Das Auto überschlägt sich. _​How could a car make itself do anything?


----------



## ablativ

I refer to this thread.


----------



## wandle

berndf said:


> Most grammarians would analyse sich for this class of reflexive verbs ("echte" reflexive Verben) as a semantically empty but syntactically required verb complement (Ergänzung). It would then be a type of verb complement in its own right and neither a subject nor an object (link). But I don't have strong opinions there If somebody called it an object I wouldn't start an argument.
> I would simply write "verb". "Active" or "passive" have no meaning for these verbs.


I would prefer to call _sich_ an ostensible (not semantically empty but semantically arbitrary) object and call _verliebt_ an ostensibly active verb. 
Our two positions do not seem to me to be very different in practice. 
My comment on the expression _er verliebt sich_ was:


> We usually think that the ostensible meaning 'he makes himself love' is unreal and therefore the sentence calls for a different analysis (though perhaps if we think about what is going on physically or biologically the ostensible meaning may be closer to the truth than is usually supposed).


The ostensible meaning 'he makes himself love' is what results from a mechanical or formulaic construal of the causative prefix _ver_-. It can be called ostensible simply because the prefix _ver_- is present: we can point to it. The burden of my comment was that we usually do not regard that ostensible meaning as representing the facts of the case: we usually regard it as unreal, not semantically true. The rest of the sentence (in brackets) points out that there may nevertheless be ground for arguing that it is real and semantically true. That in turn may be suggestive as to the origin of the expression.


Schimmelreiter said:


> If it's intransitive, how do you explain Er ist verliebt/erkältet? He's been put into that state by an undefined agent.


In _Er ist verliebt_ or _Er ist erkältet_, there is no agent at all and thus no question of agent definition.
If in this case _verliebt_ and _erkältet_ are adjectives, no verbal analysis is applicable.
If they are participles, the analysis depends upon our analysis of the finite verb in the corresponding sentences. 


Schimmelreiter said:


> That would bar inanimate things from appearing in sentences with reflexive verbs: _Das Auto überschlägt sich_. ​How could a car make itself do anything?


Two questions:
(1) Why do you think there is any question of the car making itself do anything in the first place?
(2) Why do you think the ostensible meaning would bar any semantic consequence at all? Its relation to the semantic meaning is arbitrary.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

wandle said:


> (1) Why do you think there is any question of the car making itself do anything in the first place?
> (2) Why do you think the ostensible meaning would bar any semantic consequence at all? Its relation to the semantic meaning is arbitrary.


You wrote


wandle said:


> We usually think that the ostensible meaning 'he makes himself love' is unreal


Nothing could make me consider _he makes himself love _the ostensible, albeit unreal, meaning. It's not even the ostensible meaning. My _car _example was meant to show this. _verlieben/erkälten/überschlagen _is not even ostensibly _lieben machen/kälten machen/schlagen machen _(I did what you did: drop the prefix and expect the stem to have the ostensible meaning _make + stem_: _Er ver-liebt sich. > Er macht sich lieben./He makes himself love._​)


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> _verlieben/erkälten/überschlagen _is not even ostensibly _lieben machen/kälten machen/schlagen machen _(I did what you did: drop the prefix and expect the stem to have the ostensible meaning _make + stem_



Neither of these prefixes convey a causative meaning. The prefixes _ver- _and _er-_ convey a state-shift (rather than state) meaning. But they normally don't topicalize causation.


----------



## wandle

Here I would like to raise a flag of truce (not surrender!).
I have neither academic qualifications in German nor the native speaker's idiomatic command of the language. I have to take the learner's role here for the most part, though with a trained knowledge of some European languages and a nodding acquaintance with more, I do claim more than a mere English perspective.

I do not want to give up two basic principles which I try to apply in all languages I am acquainted with: (1) to assume in the first place that individual words and units of words retain functional significance even when apparently submerged or transmuted by idiom; and (2) that therefore in the special case of reflexives there is at least a conceptual transitive sense of some sort.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> I do not want to give up two basic principles which I try to apply in all languages I am acquainted with: (1) to assume in the first place that individual words and units of words retain functional significance even when apparently submerged or transmuted by idiom...


Before you lay this discussion to rest, I'd like to understand the implications of your approach.

How would you apply this to the following groups of words in these English sentences:
_I *have eaten* a banana.
I *gave up* trying.
He gave up smoking *for good*.
_What would be the "ostensible meanings".


----------



## wandle

Each of those is an interesting question in its own right.
On 'have', the OED says in introduction: 


> Like the two other generalized verbal types _be_ and _do_, _have_ also tends to uses in which it becomes a mere element of predication, scarcely capable of explanation apart from the context, and at length an auxiliary verb.


Here, I would emphasise the word 'scarcely'.

Under sense II, as an auxiliary verb, it says:


> This use arose directly from sense 2b, the object possessed having in agreement with it a passive participle of a transitive verb as attribute or complement; thus, _I have my work done_ = ‘I possess or have my work in a done or finished condition’, whence, by inference of antecedent action from result, the actual sense ‘I have done my work’: cf. the series ‘have you the article ready?’, ‘have you the article completed?’, ‘have you completed the article?’
> ...
> In early Middle English the usage is found with verbs of action without an object, whence it was extended to intransitive verbs





wandle said:


> to assume in the first place that individual words and units of words retain functional significance even when apparently submerged or transmuted by idiom.


This means I would want to say that at every stage of this development, the word 'have' and the relevant participle each retain a distinct functional sense.

The ostensible meaning changes as the usage develops: in this case, it is illustrated by the sequence used by the OED:
‘have you the article ready?’, ‘have you the article completed?’, ‘have you completed the article?’


----------



## berndf

It was, I have to admit a kind of a catch question. The etymology of the periphrastic perfect is indeed _I have eaten a banana = I have an eaten banana_. But it is not an English development but a loan translation from Late Latin. The fact that English uses the _have_-perfect also with intransitive verbs, _I have slept_ and not *_I am slept_ (_I am a slept one_) as the Late Latin logic would require, shows that the intrinsic semantics (the "ostensible" meaning") of this form has not been imported but the periphrastic perfect can only be understood as a semantically atomic verb form. An other, a bit more drastic example word be the French future tense _j'irai = I will go_. No modern speaker will understand the periphrastic meaning_*j'irai = ego ire habeo* =* I to go have*_ behind the verb form.


----------



## wandle

The OED says that the auxiliary use was extended from transitive to intransitive verbs:


> In early Middle English the usage is found with verbs of action without an object, whence it was extended to intransitive verbs


To me that implies that there was a new development of grammar: the generalising of the auxiliary.


berndf said:


> the periphrastic perfect can only be understood as a semantically atomic verb form.


In my view, each word in the periphrastic perfect is a semantically atomic form.
I do not suggest that the ostensible meaning does not change or develop.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> I do not suggest that the ostensible meaning does not change or develop.


That was exactly my point. In this case it means that the ostensible meaning changes to expressing the perfect tenses losing any individual meanings of the auxiliary verb.


----------



## wandle

Why losing, instead of changing? Change seems to me the more economical hypothesis.


wandle said:


> In my view, each word in the periphrastic perfect is a semantically atomic form.


I ought to qualify this. I do not see a participle as semantically atomic.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> Why losing, instead of changing?


It has no semantics of its own. It serves as a kind of conjugation, like _I love - I loved _(which actually also once, a long time ago, was a periphrastic past tense form meaning _I love did_). _Sich _in _sich verlieben_ has a similar status. It is a kind of a morphological marker, like _-d _in _loved_.


----------



## wandle

berndf said:


> It is a kind of a morphological marker, like _-d _in _loved_.


I see that _-d_ also as a semantic unit. It expresses a definite meaning, not present when _-d_ is absent.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> I see that _-d_ also as a semantic unit. It expresses a definite meaning, not present when _-d_ is absent.


Now we are getting closer. The _-d_ is a past marker. Similarly, the _sich _is a decausative maker in true reflexive verbs, i.e. it marks the absence and/or non-topicalization of an agent. I.e. a pseudo-transitive interpretation would not only be factually wrong but self-contradictory.


----------



## wandle

Such a contradiction flows from the terminology. 
If you call the expression decausative, define 'decausative' as signalling non-agency, and conclude that no agent (even conceptual) is involved, then the argument is circular.

Of course, that circularity does not show the conclusion is false. It does show that to challenge it involves challenging the theoretical basis employed.
That brings us back to post 94. I am not in a position to tackle such a task in relation to German, and must bow out.
However, I have not met anything to tempt me away from what seems a more natural and economical interpretation.


----------



## wandle

One more point on terminology: why call _sich verlieben_ or _sich irren _'true' reflexives?

'Reflexive' means 'bending back'. In _sich waschen_ and _sich rasieren_ the semantic meaning is that the action is performed by the agent on the agent.
That is truly bending the action back on the agent.

In expressions which are semantically intransitive, that is not the case.  They are ostensibly transitive (which lets them appear reflexive) but are in practical effect intransitive.
Hence, they would be better termed 'pseudo-reflexives' or _Scheinreflexiven_, would they not?


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> Such a contradiction flows from the terminology.
> If you call the expression decausative, define 'decausative' as signalling non-agency, and conclude that no agent (even conceptual) is involved, then the argument is circular.
> 
> Of course, that circularity does not show the conclusion is false. It does show that to challenge it involves challenging the theoretical basis employed.
> That brings us back to post 94. I am not in a position to tackle such a task in relation to German, and must bow out.
> However, I have not met anything to tempt me away from what seems a more natural and economical interpretation.


Well, I brought up the theoretical term of a _decausative verb_ only in the hope of giving you easier access to the intuitive meaning of this class of verbs. In German grammar, the usual term is _echtes reflexives Verb_. That _echte reflexive Verben_ mark the actor role *explicitly* as void is not a terminological question but a fact of the German language.


wandle said:


> One more point on terminology: why call _sich verlieben_ or _sich irren _'true' reflexives?
> 
> 'Reflexive' means 'bending back'. In _sich waschen_ and _sich rasieren_ the semantic meaning is that the action is performed by the agent on the agent.
> That is truly bending the action back on the agent.
> 
> In expressions which are semantically intransitive, that is not the case. They are ostensibly transitive (which lets them appear reflexive) but are in practical effect intransitive.
> Hence, they would be better termed 'pseudo-reflexives' or _Scheinreflexiven_, would they not?


Because this *is* the true nature of reflexive verbs in German. A "pseudo-reflexive" Verb are those which no not reflect the semantics of a reflexive verb but that of a transitive verb. Considering _transitive, true reflexive_ and _intransitive _verbs as separate and irreducible categories is immediately intuitive for every German native speaker and therefore rarely discussed in grammar books.

There are some verbs that exist as transitive and true reflexive. to disambiguate them, one would use _sich _as true reflexive marker and _sich selbst_ (_oneself_) as reflexively used transitive marker. Sr gave an example:





Schimmelreiter said:


> So what if there are reflexives to which the agent-patient concept is inapplicable?
> 
> I've found one to which it is applicable: _sich bemühen. __Darf ich Sie bemühen? Bemühen Sie sich doch selbst!_


A true reflexive use would be _Er bemühte sich, nicht zu spät zu kommen_. Replacing _sich _with _sich selbst_ would be nonsensical in this sentence.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

I believe the problem has to do with calling expressions like _Ich wasche mich_ reflexive. They are not reflexive at all. They are purely transitive. _Ich verliebe mich _is conceptually unrelated to _Ich wasche mich._

We should stop calling _mich_, in _Ich wasche mich_, a reflexive pronoun. There's no conceptual difference between _Ich wasche mich_ and _Ich wasche dich. _We should not call any pronoun reflexive. We should call _sich_, in _Er wäscht sich_, self-referent.

We should reserve _reflexive_ for verbs like _sich verlieben/erkälten.

_The conceptual unrelatedness of transitivity and reflexivity becomes especially obvious in verbs like _ängstigen_: Transitive _ängstigen (to frighten) _is conceptually unrelated to reflexive _sich ängstigen _inasmuch as the latter doesn't mean _to frighten oneself._


----------



## wandle

I still wonder how far all this question is terminological.


Schimmelreiter said:


> The conceptual unrelatedness of transitivity and reflexivity becomes especially obvious in verbs like _ängstigen_: Transitive _ängstigen (to frighten) _is conceptually unrelated to reflexive _sich ängstigen _inasmuch as the latter doesn't mean _to frighten oneself._


That seems to me to be about semantic difference.

The canoo page linked above contains the following statement:


> Das Reflexivpronomen hat die Rolle eines Objekts im Satz. Es bezieht zurück auf das Subjekt des Satzes und ist mit ihm identisch.


That is a general statement applicable to all three subsequently identified categories. It seems to me to agree with the proposition that reflexives are ostensibly (as distinct from semantically) transitive. This proposition seems to me to hold good as long as grammatical subject and object can both be discerned. Another way to put that proposition is to speak of a conceptual (as distinct from real) agent and patient.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> The canoo page linked above contains the following statement:


If you read carefully, you will discover that this statement applies to "reflexiv verwendete Verben" and not to ",echte' reflexive Verben". I.e. it applies to what I called "pseudo-reflexive":


berndf said:


> A "pseudo-reflexive" Verb are those which no not  reflect the semantics of a reflexive verb but that of a transitive  verb.


----------



## wandle

That statement is part of a separate initial introductory section descriptive I believe of all reflexive verbs, as the examples given cover all three types:


> *Reflexive Verben*
> 
> Reflexive Verben (rückbezügliche Verben) sind Verben, die sich mit dem Reflexivpronomen sich verbinden:
> 
> Ich schäme mich.
> Du eignest dir neue Fertigkeiten an.
> Liebeskummer lohnt sich nicht.
> Wir fürchten uns vor der Dunkelheit.
> Ihr habt euch selber eingeladen.
> Sie zweifeln an sich.
> 
> Das Reflexivpronomen hat die Rolle eines Objekts im Satz. Es bezieht zurück auf das Subjekt des Satzes und ist mit ihm identisch.


----------



## berndf

Ooops, I read the wrong sentence, viz. this one: "Das Reflexivpronomen übernimmt im Satz dann die Rolle eines Objektes,  wenn das Objekt mit dem Subjekt identisch ist. In diesem Fall muss sogar  ein Reflexivpronomen verwendet werden".

In the sentence "Das Reflexivpronomen hat die Rolle eines Objekts im Satz. Es bezieht  zurück auf das Subjekt des Satzes und ist mit ihm identisch" I see nothing that contradicts what we, SR and me, said. We said:
For true reflexive verbs, _sich _reflect back to the subject and marks it, the subject, as non-actor and the actor role as such as void.


----------



## wandle

I simply pointed out that it agreed with what I had said:


wandle said:


> That is a general statement applicable to all three subsequently identified categories. It seems to me to agree with the proposition that reflexives are ostensibly (as distinct from semantically) transitive. This proposition seems to me to hold good as long as grammatical subject and object can both be discerned. Another way to put that proposition is to speak of a conceptual (as distinct from real) agent and patient.


This brings to mind the logical principle known as the identity of indiscernibles.

If all sides agree with the canoo statement quoted in post 108, we must be agreeing with each other.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> That is a general statement applicable to all three subsequently  identified categories. It seems to me to agree with the proposition that  reflexives are ostensibly (as distinct from semantically) transitive.  This proposition seems to me to hold good as long as grammatical subject  and object can both be discerned.


That is all fine. Here is where I disagree:


wandle said:


> Another way to put that proposition  is to speak of a conceptual (as distinct from real) agent and  patient.


In at least some true reflexive verbs the subject is quite categorically identified as a non-agent.


----------



## wandle

The fact that we agree on the canoo statement implies that the difference is indeed terminological.

As already indicated, to me these three statements are equivalent:
(a) all reflexives employ a grammatical subject and object;
(b) all reflexives are ostensibly (as distinct from semantically) transitive;
(c) all reflexives involve a conceptual (as distinct from real) agent and patient.

Those are different ways of making the same point. 
We can qualify (b) by saying that in some cases the reflexive is semantically as well as ostensibly transitive.
We can qualify (c) by saying that in some cases the agent and patient are real (still, of course, identical) as well as conceptual.


berndf said:


> In at least some true reflexive verbs the subject is quite categorically identified as a non-agent.


In this statement, I understand 'agent' as real.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> (a) all reflexives employ a grammatical subject and object;





wandle said:


> (b) all reflexives are ostensibly (as distinct from semantically) transitive;


Partially  Partially  I can agree with that for reflexive verbs and reflexively used verbs with an accusative reflexive pronoun. For verbs with a dative reflexive pronoun this statement is clearly wrong (unless it also has an accusative object as well, but that is obviously not what you meant).


wandle said:


> (c) all reflexives involve a conceptual (as distinct from real) agent and patient.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

I don't think _sich_, in _Er verliebt/erkältet sich_, is a grammatical object. It's not the _"target" of the action or process expressed by the predicate._ Rather, it's part of the predicate.
_
An object is the "target" of the action or process expressed by the predicate._
http://www.canoo.net/services/Onlin...d/Objekt/index.html?MenuId=Sentence25&lang=en


----------



## wandle

I thought we were in agreement with canoo' s general statement on reflexives:


> Das Reflexivpronomen hat die Rolle eines Objekts im Satz. Es bezieht  zurück auf das Subjekt des Satzes und ist mit ihm identisch.


----------



## wandle

Re post 115: yes, in statement (b) I had overlooked dative reflexive pronouns. In such a case, we can speak of the indirect object.
The fact that it declines appropriately does confirm its grammatical role, though.
If you disagree with (c), does that mean you reject the distinction between real and conceptual agent or patient?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

wandle said:


> I thought we were in agreement with canoo' s general statement on reflexives


canoo's not in agreement with itself. I agree that _an object is the "target" of the action or process expressed by the predicate_, which is how canoo defines what an object is. I fail to see _sich _as _the "target" of the action or process expressed by the predicate_ in _Er verliebt/erkältet sich_. In order for _sich_ to be the target of _verlieben_, the latter would have to be transitive, which it isn't.


Take _Ich erinnere mich seiner. _The sentence has one object _(seiner). __mich _can't be an object but must be part of the predicate since _erinnere_ is not, by itself, able to govern ("target", in canoo's terminology) _seiner._ Do you seriously parse the sentence as having two objects?


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> I don't think _sich_, in _Er verliebt/erkältet sich_, is a grammatical object. It's not the _"target" of the action or process expressed by the predicate._ Rather, it's part of the predicate.
> _
> An object is the "target" of the action or process expressed by the predicate._
> http://www.canoo.net/services/Onlin...d/Objekt/index.html?MenuId=Sentence25&lang=en


It is semantically clearly the patient of the action and it is accusative and clearly not an adverbial. For me that is sufficient to accept it, at least formally or ostensibly, as a direct object; "accept" in the weak sense that I would start an fight over the issue.

On the other hand I agree with you that the analysis of _sich _as a pure reflexive marker without any interpretation as a verb complement is much more in line with actual usage and the actual interpretation by native speakers and is also for me the preferable interpretation. The effective function of the reflexive marker is to mark the subject as the patient of the action and the actor role as void. This is incompatible with the interpretation as a direct object. Canoo lists three characteristic of the reflexive pronoun for a true reflexive verb:
(1) Das Reflexivpronomen kann nicht wegglassen werden,
(2) Das Reflexivpronomen kann nicht durch ein anderes Pronomen oder ein Nomen ersetzt werden,
(3) Man kann nicht nach dem Reflexivpronomen fragen
These characteristics make it difficult to interpret the reflexive pronoun as an, even formally independent, valency of the verb, in particular characteristic (3).

Interestingly, in Latin and Italian reflexive verbs are orthographically treated similar to separable verbs in German. You write them separated for finite verb forms, e.g., _ci vediamo = we see us_, but the as one word in the infinitive _vedersi_ and the pronunciation is enclitic.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> If you disagree with (c), does that mean you reject the distinction between real and conceptual agent or patient?


Yes, because this characterization of effective semantics in verbs like _sich verlieben_


berndf said:


> The effective function of the reflexive marker is to mark the subject as the patient of the action and the actor role as void.


makes your interpretation (c) very difficult.


----------



## wandle

Does that mean
(a) that you allow no distinction between effective meaning and conceptual form in such expressions?
(b) that you do allow such distinction in other expressions?


berndf said:


> this characterization of effective semantics in verbs like sich verlieben
> 
> 
> 
> The effective function of the reflexive marker is to mark the subject as the patient of the action and the actor role as void.
> 
> 
> 
> makes your interpretation (c) very difficult.
Click to expand...

My statement (c) 





> all reflexives involve a conceptual (as distinct from real) agent and patient


is not a comment on the effective meaning.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> Does that mean
> (a) that you allow no distinction between effective meaning and conceptual form in such expressions?
> (b) that you do allow such distinction in other expressions?


I resist allowing the "ostensible" or "formal" meaning to contradict the "effective" meaning so blatantly.

You could still keep your interpretation, definitions or axiomatizations are never correct or false but they can only be more or less useful. If the formalisms capture the de-facto semantics so poorly, I would definitely go for "less useful".


----------



## wandle

berndf said:


> I resist allowing the "ostensible" or "formal" meaning to contradict the "effective" meaning so blatantly.


Whereas my inclination is to resist allowing the effective meaning to obliterate the ostensible meaning so utterly.

However, as I say, I am not in a postion to contest the point at an overall theoretical level.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> Whereas my inclination is to resist allowing the effective meaning to obliterate the ostensible meaning so utterly.


The effective meaning as I described it is a fact. The purpose of grammatical formalisms is to represent facts adequately. If they contradict, the formalism is wrong (more precisely: inadequate), not the language.

Of course, sometimes formalisms have repercussions on the language and effectively alter it (I am thinking, e.g., of double negations which originally were emphatic negations but which are in most modern standard languages today mutually cancelling negations). This is what we call _prescriptive grammar_. But in this case there is absolutely no sign of such a repercussion and no prescriptive grammars have ever attempted to alter language usage; neither in German nor in Romance languages.


----------



## wandle

berndf said:


> The effective meaning as I described it is a fact.


So is the ostensible meaning (the actual words used). The issue is the relation of the two sets of facts.

If we try to negate or empty out the ostensible meaning, we at least appear to cut off the roots of the language.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Re ostensible meaning: wandle, you haven't commented upon this remark of mine:





Schimmelreiter said:


> Take _Ich erinnere mich seiner. _The sentence has one object _(seiner). __mich _can't be an object but must be part of the predicate since _erinnere_ is not, by itself, able to govern ("target", in canoo's terminology) _seiner._ Do you seriously parse the sentence as having two objects?


Is your point that ostensibly, there are two objects in _Ich erinnere mich seiner_? My point is that not even ostensibly are there two objects in that sentence. _erinnern _can't govern a genitive object. The verb by which _seiner _is governed is _erinnere mich_. It's a mere matter of convention whether you spell that verb _erinnere m__ich_, _*erinnere-mich_ or _*erinneremich._


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> So is the ostensible meaning (the actual words used). The issue is the relation of the two sets of facts.


The meaning of a word is derived from its usage and not the other way round. Etymological considerations are very interesting objects of study but cannot determine the meaning of a word or expression in a given language.

Besides, the etymological meaning of the IE reflexive pronoun is by no means as clear as you perceive it. It is usually translated _oneself _into English. This has less to do with the etymology of the reflexive pronoun that with the fact that English lacks the reflexive pronoun and with it the attached concept and this translation is therefore by necessity defective. _Oneself _is used, e.g., to translate _sich _and _sich selbst_ although the two have very different meanings.


----------



## wandle

Schimmelreiter said:


> canoo's not in agreement with itself.
> ...
> Take _Ich erinnere mich seiner. _The sentence has one object _(seiner). __mich _can't be an object but must be part of the predicate since _erinnere_ is not, by itself, able to govern ("target", in canoo's terminology) _seiner._ Do you seriously parse the sentence as having two objects?


I see no difficulty in a verb having both a direct and an indirect object.


----------



## wandle

berndf said:


> The meaning of a word is derived from its usage and not the other way round.


Again, this applies equally to both meanings.


> Etymological considerations are very interesting objects of study but cannot determine the meaning of a word or expression in a given language.


 I have not offered an etymological argument, or indeed at this stage any argument. As explained already, I have opted out of further argument for lack of sufficient background (like the poker player who believes he has good enough cards but cannot match the stake).

All I can offer is a personal reaction for whatever it is worth.  My post 126 was not a comment about etymology, but a reaction to this:


berndf said:


> Most grammarians would analyse sich for this class of reflexive verbs ("echte" reflexive Verben) as a semantically empty but syntactically required verb complement (Ergänzung).


Perhaps my botanical analogy was misleading: let me rephrase it. Calling a traditional expression semantically empty (as distinct from semantically arbitrary) seems to me like cutting off the blossom instead of leaving it as part of the plant.


> Besides, the etymological meaning of the IE reflexive pronoun is by no means as clear as you perceive it.


I have never formed, let alone expressed a view on that.
It is rather an odd experience to find views one does not hold attributed assumptively, as if at a snap of the fingers one were suddenly dressed in someone else's clothes.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> My post 126 was not a comment about etymology


I bed to differ. You formulated a hypothesis about "the roots of the language" (i.e. the intrinsic meaning of the reflexive pronoun) which I can't agree with.

Cf.:





wandle said:


> If we try to negate or empty out the ostensible  meaning, we at least appear to cut off the roots of the  language.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> I see no difficulty in a verb having both a direct and an indirect object.


I agree. In particular as the verb has also a transitive meaning with an accusative and a genitive object:
_Sie erinnerte ihn seines Verspechens._
(In modern usage the genitive object is generally replaced by a prepositional object, _Sie erinnerte ihn an sein Verspechen_, but that doesn't invalidate the example.)


----------



## wandle

berndf said:


> I bed to differ. You formulated a hypothesis  about "the roots of the language" (i.e. the intrinsic meaning of the  reflexive pronoun) which I can't agree with.


It was on the ostensible meaning. 'Roots' was not the best word, as explained.
Would you care to comment on this related thread?


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> It was on the ostensible meaning. 'Roots' was not the best word, as explained.


As I wrote my answer, I realized that you probably meant something else by "roots" than etymological roots, viz. the intrinsic meanings of the atomic constituents out of which a syntactic and semantic unit is assembled. That's why I added the ().

Let me make my position clearer by stating the argument more radically than I would normally feel safe to do:
_Sich = oneself_, expressing the identity of agent and patient in the agent-patient paradigm of the transitive verb is *not *the intrinsic meaning of _sich_. The pronoun phrase conveying this meaning is _sich selbst_. In pseudo-transitive uses like _Er wusch sich_ the pronoun _sich _should be analysed as elliptic for _Er wusch sich selbst_.

I said "more radically than I would normally feel safe" because I am well aware that _sich selbst_ can with equal justification be understood as an emphatic form of the simple _sich_. But the fact that_ sich selbst _is mandatory to disambiguate between true and pseudo-transitive meanings in cases where the ambiguity exists (_Er erinnerte sich an den Termin_ vs. _Er erinnerte sich selbst an den Termin_) makes my radical analysis more consistent with reality of the language and with the actual understanding native speakers have than the alternative interpretation that the identity of agent and patient is expressed by _sich_ itself, i.e. is the "ostensible" meaning of the reflexive pronoun.



wandle said:


> Would you care to comment on this related thread?


Will do (when I find the time) Done.


----------



## wandle

A few more personal reactions:


berndf said:


> the intrinsic meanings of the atomic constituents out of which a syntactic and semantic unit is assembled.


It seems to me that in a radical view words, or their elements, do not have intrinsic meanings, but are symbols with initially arbitrary meanings attached.


> In pseudo-transitive uses like _Er wusch sich_ the pronoun sich should be analysed as elliptic for _Er wusch sich selbst_.


The more an expression can be analysed in such a way, and the more it exhibits other grammatical phenomena such as declension, the less likely it seems to me to be devoid of semantic meaning.


> _sich selbst_ is mandatory to disambiguate between true and pseudo-transitive meanings in cases where the ambiguity exists


That again looks to me like a question of definition.


> _Er erinnerte sich an den Termin_ vs. _Er erinnerte sich selbst an den Termin_


That is, 'He remembered the appointment' and 'He reminded himself of the appointment'.
It seems to me that here _sich selbst_ is a device which has to be used because the expected _sich_ is already in use.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> That again looks to me like a question of definition.


I don't understand. Can you elaborate? What is a question of definition?


----------



## wandle

berndf said:


> the fact that_ sich selbst _is mandatory to disambiguate between true and pseudo-transitive meanings in cases where the ambiguity exists (_Er erinnerte sich an den Termin_ vs. _Er erinnerte sich selbst an den Termin_) makes my radical analysis more consistent with reality of the language and with the actual understanding native speakers have than the alternative interpretation that the identity of agent and patient is expressed by _sich_ itself, i.e. is the "ostensible" meaning of the reflexive pronoun.


If I understand the proposition, it is that the necessity for _sich selbst_ in such cases demonstrates that that analysis is more consistent with language use than the alternative: whereas to me it seems that _sich selbst_ is an _ad hoc_ measure.
To reject the _'ad hoc' _point would I think be saying that the proposition is true by definition.


----------



## berndf

I explicitly said that the way I stated my point was exaggerated (to show the thrust of the argument better). I also accepted that _sich selbst_ is, at least originally, an emphatic form. The role it plays in disambiguating between different meanings shows that _sich _has more meanings than _oneself_ and that is is questionable to identify this as the original, inherent or "ostensible" meaning and *that *(and not my claim) would be an ad hoc definition. It is only one of many. My claim "my radical analysis more consistent with reality of the language and with the actual understanding native speakers" is certainly not a definition but a statement about the real world. Which you may contest, but it is not a definition.


----------

