# Du hast (sogar) nicht mal dein Essen angerührt, wieso bist du satt?



## Caioveloso

Moin,

"Du hast (sogar) nicht mal dein Essen ausgerührt, wieso bist du satt?"

Does it make sense to add "sogar" here? if so, how does it affect the meaning of the sentence? does the additional word make the sentence more or less formal?


----------



## elroy

Caioveloso said:


> Does it make sense to add "sogar" here?


No.  “nicht mal” already means “not even.”  You can’t add another “even.”


----------



## διαφορετικός

By the way, "ausgerührt" is wrong, "angerührt" would be right.


----------



## elroy

Or "angefasst."


----------



## Hutschi

"Du hast (sogar) nicht mal dein Essen angerührt, wieso bist du satt?"

"Sogar" is mostly used with positive verbs:
"Du hast sogar alles aufgegessen, wieso bist du (da) noch nicht satt?"

Positive and negative, you can use "ja", "doch", and maybe others:

 "Du hast ja dein Essen nicht mal  angerührt, wieso bist du satt?/..., wie kannst du da satt sein?"
"Ja" is spoken short, it is not "ja=yes".

"Du hast doch dein Essen nicht mal  angerührt, wieso bist du satt?/..., wie kannst du da satt sein?"

(I would rearrange it here and use "wie kannst du da satt sein?")
("Da" is also a particle, it emphasizes astonishment)


The sentence is not formal, but if it were normal, particles as "doch", "sogar", "ja" etc. make it less formal. They are often used in dialogues and add emotions or emphasize parts.

Edit: added more examples, improved structure.


----------



## Hutschi

small excurs:
I want to give the default sequence:
"Du hast dein Essen nicht mal angerührt, wieso bist du satt?"
"Nicht mal" basically negates the verb.

In your case "Du hast nicht mal dein Essen angerührt, wieso bist du satt?"
This is usually in contrast to some other parts or emphasizes some other parts, not mentioned here. It does not work good with "wieso bist du satt?"
 I give an example:
_Du hast gar nichts angerührt. Du hast (sogar) nicht mal dein Essen angerührt._ (The second sentence emphasizes the first one). Here "sogar" works, because the second sentence emphasizes the first one.


----------



## bearded

Hutschi said:


> In your case "Du hast nicht mal dein Essen angerührt, wieso bist du satt?"
> This is usually in contrast to some other parts or emphasizes some other parts, not mentioned here. It does not work good with "wieso bist du satt?"


I would interpret the last part as
_Wieso? Bist du satt?_
(defective punctuation/Zeichensetzung mangelhaft).


----------



## διαφορετικός

bearded said:


> I would interpret the last part as
> _Wieso? Bist du satt?_
> (defective punctuation/Zeichensetzung mangelhaft).


Possible. But I think it's meant differently: "Du hast nicht einmal dein Essen angerührt. Wieso bist du also angeblich trotzdem satt?"


----------



## Hutschi

bearded said:


> I would interpret the last part as
> _Wieso? Bist du satt?_
> (defective punctuation/Zeichensetzung mangelhaft).


I think, Caioveloso can tell us if the version in #1 is correct, as διαφορετικός and I suppose.


----------



## Caioveloso

Hutschi said:


> I think, Caioveloso can tell us if the version in #1 is correct, as διαφορετικός and I suppose.


It's more like your version, but it's all hypothetical, I made this sentence up to check better ways of conveying its idea and also to learn how to use these "filler" particles you mentioned, which is not an easy task, but yeah, they do make sentences sound more natural, which is my focus. Danke vielmals!


----------



## Hutschi

elroy said:


> No. “nicht mal” already means “not even.” You can’t add another “even.”


Hi elroy,
I just read it again. Could you explain it? I do not understand the identity not even - sogar. (Except that bot contradict each other.) "Sogar" is almost the contrary of "not even".

_Ich habe nicht mal eine Portion gegessen. _ vs. _Ich habe sogar zwei Portionen gegessen._


----------



## Hutschi

Caioveloso said:


> It's more like your version, but it's all hypothetical, I made this sentence up to check better ways of conveying its idea ...



..., wieso bist du satt? = why are you full/fed up/ why aren't you hungry?
Wieso? Bist du satt? = Why? Are you you full/fed up/ why aren't you hungry?


----------



## elroy

“nicht mal” = “not even” 
*“sogar nicht mal” = *“even not even”


----------



## bearded

Hutschi said:


> ..., wieso bist du satt? = why are you full/fed up/ _why aren't you hungry?_
> Wieso? Bist du satt? = Why? Are you you full/fed up/ _why aren't you hungry?_


Es geht sowieso auf dasselbe hinaus..


----------



## Hutschi

elroy said:


> “nicht mal” = “not even”
> *“sogar nicht mal” = *“even not even”


This way "even" is an antagonym (Januswort). 
It means itself and its contrary (approximately).


----------



## elroy

Hutschi said:


> This way "even" is an antagonym (Januswort).
> It means itself and its contrary (approximately).


How do you figure?

My only point was that “even not even” doesn’t make sense. 

I think the confusion is that German uses “sogar” for “even,” but for “not even” it doesn’t use “nicht sogar” but “nicht *(ein)mal*.”  I suspect @Caioveloso wasn’t aware of this German peculiarity and didn’t realize the “even” meaning was already conveyed through the use of “mal,” and that that’s why they wanted to add “sogar.”


----------



## bearded

elroy said:


> this German peculiarity


( actually not only German: cf. Italian _perfino_ = even/sogar, _neppure_ = not even/nicht mal ).
But I agree that Caioveloso presumably didn't know the meaning of ''nicht mal''.


----------



## elroy

Spanish is like German and Italian: “hasta/incluso” vs. “ni siquiera.”  But French is like English: “même” vs. “même pas.”  I don’t know about Portuguese, @Caioveloso’s native language.


----------



## Hutschi

elroy said:


> My only point was that “even not even” doesn’t make sense.


I see. I misunderstood.

In German:
"sogar nicht mal" can make sense if the context fits. This is not the case in the example in #1.

"Du hast sogar nicht mal dein Essen angerührt, wieso bist du satt?"
(This is usually semantically problematic, but can be correct. Du hast dein Essen nicht nur kritisiert, du hast es sogar nicht mal angerührt, ...")


"Du hast nicht nur nichts gegessen, du hast das Essen nicht mal angesehen."


----------



## JClaudeK

Caioveloso said:


> does the additional word make the sentence more or less formal?
> 
> 
> elroy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can’t add another “even.”
Click to expand...



But you can add the _Modalpartikel_ "ja"


Hutschi said:


> "Du hast *ja* dein Essen nicht mal angerührt, wieso bist du satt?/..., wie kannst du da satt sein?"
> "Ja" is spoken short, it is not "ja=yes".


 
which makes the sentence more idiomatic.


----------



## διαφορετικός

Hutschi said:


> Du hast dein Essen nicht nur kritisiert, du hast es sogar nicht mal angerührt, ...


Yes, it is justified to use "even" twice here ("sogar" + "nicht mal"), because they refer to different units.

(But it would be easier to read as follows: "Du hast dein Essen nicht nur kritisiert, sondern du hast es (auch) nicht mal angerührt.")


----------



## Caioveloso

elroy said:


> Spanish is like German and Italian: “hasta/incluso” vs. “ni siquiera.”  But French is like English: “même” vs. “même pas.”  I don’t know about Portuguese, @Caioveloso’s native language.


In Portuguese we would say "nem sequer", which I guess, is similar to Italian "ni sequiera", but we also say "nem mesmo", "mesmo" resembles "sogar" a bit (they don't always mean the same though), which made me thinks the same structure could exist in German, but as you explained, it doesn't. Everything is clear now, it is better to say only "nicht einmal" in negative sentences.


----------



## bearded

Caioveloso said:


> Italian "ni s*i*quiera"


Spanish.


----------



## anahiseri

elroy said:


> Or "angefasst."


you can`t use *anfassen *in this context, when referring to food, that is, as a synonym of "eat" Examples with this verb:
Fass die  Tür nicht an, sie ist schmutzig.
Fass mich nicht an!
Er kann den Hund ruhig anfassen.


----------



## Hutschi

anahiseri said:


> you can`t use *anfassen *in this context, when referring to food, that is, as a synonym of "eat" Examples with this verb:
> Fass die  Tür nicht an, sie ist schmutzig.
> Fass mich nicht an!
> Er kann den Hund ruhig anfassen.


Hi anahiseri,

nicht angefasst:
I think you can use it because it is an idiom for "you did not eat it, not even touch it."

This means, it is synonym in the negated form.

At least in my region it is used and idiomatic and I use it myself.

Beispiel:
nicht mal angefasst - Englisch Übersetzung - Deutsch Beispiele | Reverso Context


> Du hast dein Essen _nicht mal angefasst_, deine Kleider sind noch nicht trocken und ich glaube, wir beide wissen, dass du sonst nirgends hinkannst.



In positive form it is another thing.
"Du hast dein Essen angefasst, jetzt musst du auch aufessen."
Here "anfassen" does not have a direct connection to "eating".


----------



## elroy

anahiseri said:


> as a synonym of "eat"


I did not mean to use it as a synonym of “eat.”  I meant “touch.”

_You haven’t even touched your food._

The “not eating” is implied, since you can’t eat it without touching it. 

"essen nicht angefasst" - Google Search


----------



## anahiseri

My explanation was not good. Both *anrühren *and* anfassen *can be translated by _touch, _ but in the context of eating, *nicht anrühren* means not even eat a little bit, not even start eating, not even put your spoon in the soup . For me, *anfassen* is not idiomatic in this context.- But maybe it depends on the region
I know it's off the topic but I think it's worthwhile mentioning.


----------



## JClaudeK

anahiseri said:


> Both *anrühren *and* anfassen *can be translated by _touch, _ but in the context of eating, *nicht anrühren* means not even eat a little bit



Ja, _anrühren_ (im Zusammenhang mit Essen) wird im übertragenen Sinn gebraucht, _anfassen_ nicht.

Siehe auch:


> Redenartenindex
> keinen Bissen anrühren - nicht essen



und Duden: 


> 1b)
> 
> von etwas essen, trinken, nehmen, verbrauchen (meist verneint oder eingeschränkt)
> Beispiele
> das Essen kaum anrühren
> keine Zigaretten anrühren


----------



## elroy

It obviously _is_ used that way — see the Google results.  It may be regional, as @anahiseri says.


----------



## JClaudeK

elroy said:


> It may be regional, as @anahiseri says.


May be. I've never come across, so far.


----------



## Alemanita

elroy said:


> "essen nicht angefasst" - Google Search


Vieles von dem, was ich auf der ersten Seite von 936 (!) Ergebnissen zu sehen bekam, bedeutete tatsächlich: mit den Händen berührt; in einem Fall fehlte ein Komma (Konnte 2 Wochen so gut wie nix sagen nicht _essen nicht angefasst_ werden) ...


----------



## Sowka

JClaudeK said:


> Ja, _anrühren_ (im Zusammenhang mit Essen) wird im übertragenen Sinn gebraucht, _anfassen_ nicht.


Ich schließe mich der Auffassung von @anahiseri @Alemanita und @JClaudeK an: Essen anfassen bedeutet nur, das Essen mit den Händen zu berühren. Und bei vielen Speisen ist das explizit unerwünscht. 

"Das Essen nicht anrühren" hingegen bedeutet, dass man nicht einmal den kleinsten Anteil davon* isst*, ob nun mit Besteck oder ohne.


----------



## Hutschi

Wenn ich Essen nicht anfasse, geht es immer um Essen, dass ich anfassen würde, um es zu essen. Brötchen, Schnitten, Frühstück, Abendbrot.
Suppe würde nicht dazugehören, Roulade auch nicht, als Beispiele.
Es ist immer im Kontext zu sehen.


----------



## berndf

I am late to this discussion. So forgive me should this point already have been raised and should I have missed it:

To me the question doesn't arise because I can't think of any context where
_Du hast nicht mal dein Essen angerührt, wieso bist du satt?_
Would make sense. I can only think of contexts where one might say:
_Du hast dein Essen nicht mal angerührt, wieso bist du satt?_

In this case I could imagine an additional sogar:
_Du hast nicht nur etwas übrig gelassen, du hast sogar dein Essen nicht mal angerührt, wieso bist du satt?_


----------



## elroy

berndf said:


> In this case I could imagine an additional sogar:
> _Du hast nicht nur etwas übrig gelassen, du hast sogar dein Essen nicht mal angerührt, wieso bist du satt?_


This is interesting.  Maybe it works in German because "sogar" and "nicht mal" are not the same word.  In English the sentence would sound totally unidiomatic with "even" twice, so much so that I would consider it wrong:

_You didn't just leave some food on your plate, you *even* didn't *even* touch your food, how can you be full?_

To express the same nuance as in German, I might say (for example):

_You didn't just leave some food on your plate, you *actually* didn't *even* touch your food, how can you be full?_


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> Maybe it works in German because "sogar" and "nicht mal" are not the same word.


This is my assumption, too.



elroy said:


> You didn't just leave some food on your plate, you *actually* didn't *even* touch your food, how can you be full?


Yes, that makes sense. Like the _sogar_ in my German sentence, this _actually_ ist strictly speaking superfluous; it can nevertheless be useful to reinforce the statement.


----------

