# Du weißt, dass er für das bestraft wird, was er dir angetan hat



## Alan Evangelista

Hi, guys!

I am a little confused about using a demonstrative pronoun as a placeholder for a following clause. Example:

Du weißt, dass er für das bestraft wird, was er dir angetan hat
= You know that he will be punished for what he has done to you.

I thought that I should use "dafür" instead of "für das" as placeholder here. Could I use the former instead of latter here? Would the meaning be different?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## elroy

No, you can't use "dafür." 

"das, was er angetan hat" is a single unit.  You can't split off the "das," change it to "da-", and add it to "für."


----------



## Alan Evangelista

elroy said:


> No, you can't use "dafür."
> 
> "das, was er angetan hat" is a single unit.  You can't split off the "das," change it to "da-", and add it to "für."



It seems to me this is not specific to this verb, but to the "(preposition of a prepositional complement) ..., was ...." structure. Is that right?

Another similar example with "entscheiden":

Sie haben sich für das entschieden, was den meisten Menschen zugute kommt.


----------



## elroy

Alan Evangelista said:


> It seems to me this is not specific to this verb


 Right.


----------



## Perseas

An alternative word order perhaps: "Du weißt, dass er für das, was er dir angetan hat, bestraft wird.


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> No, you can't use "dafür."
> 
> "das, was er angetan hat" is a single unit.  You can't split off the "das," change it to "da-", and add it to "für."


I am not sure this is right. I would also prefer für das, was... over dafür, was... but you definitely hear both. Here is an example for the latter: _Es würden sich mittlerweile, so Kenny Werner, mehr Leute dafür interessieren, was er schreibe, denn dafür, was er spiele_. In my ears it doesn't sounds wrong.


----------



## elroy

That example feels different to me.  It feels like “they were interested in *what-he-wrote*” as opposed to “they were interested in “*that which* he wrote.” 

In your example, the object is “was er schreibe” and “da-” is only there to “introduce” the object.

In the original, the object is “das,” and the “was” clause is an attribute.

There’s a difference at least in nuance, I think.


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> In your example, the object is “was er schreibe” and “da-” is only there to “introduce” the object.


In the sentence in the OP it isn't any different. _Das_ is just a placeholder for _was er dir angetan hat_.


----------



## elroy

_Ich interessiere mich dafür, was er schreibt.
Ich interessiere mich für das, was er schreibt._

Do you find these 100% interchangeable, down to the last nuance?


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> Do you find these 100% interchangeable, down to the last nuance?


No, but they are both correct and share the same meaning. The contraction _für das > dafür_ deemphasises the object. It's your choice if that's what you want to do.


----------



## bearded

In elroy's first example, the subordinate clause sounds almost like an indirect question. Is that possible?
_Ich interessiere mich dafür (=ich bin interessiert, zu erfahren,) was er schreibt._


----------



## elroy

My whole point is that they are not (100%) the same, so you can’t substitute one for the other without introducing a change (in nuance or meaning).  I don’t think it’s just a matter of emphasis. 

_Ich interessiere mich dafür, was er schreibt._
This could mean I am interested in the topic of “what he writes.” 

_Ich interessiere mich für das, was er schreibt._
This means I am interested in his actual writings.


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> My whole point is that they are not (100%) the same


Well, you said


elroy said:


> No, you can't use "dafür."


And I didn't think that was right.


elroy said:


> _Ich interessiere mich dafür, was er schreibt._
> This could mean I am interested in the topic of “what he writes.”


If that's what you want to say then you would say
_Ich interessiere mich dafür/für das, worüber er schreibt._
I don't see how _dafür_ vs _für das_ matters here.


----------



## Perseas

But why does canoonet say then 
_"A relative clause does _usually_ not refer to a pronominal adverb but to the corresponding combination of preposition and pronoun._" ?


_Ich bin mit dem, was du vorschlägst, nicht einverstanden. __  instead of:  __Ich bin damit, was du vorschlägst, nicht einverstanden. _

http://canoo.net/services/OnlineGrammar/Wort/Pronomen/PronAdv/Funktion.html?lang=en
Is 'usually' the key word?


----------



## manfy

bearded said:


> In elroy's first example, the subordinate clause sounds almost like an indirect question. Is that possible?
> _Ich interessiere mich dafür (=ich bin interessiert, zu erfahren,) was er schreibt._


That depends on what _dafür_ you're talking about: _*da*für _or _da*für*_.

_*da*für _(i.e. with stress on 'da') can semantically be identical to_ 'für das', _but _da*für*_ _(with flat pronunciation or slight stress on 'für')_ clearly changes the meaning of the sentence.

[cross-posted]


----------



## berndf

Perseas said:


> But why does canoonet say then
> _"A relative clause does _usually_ not refer to a pronominal adverb but to the corresponding combination of preposition and pronoun._" ?
> 
> 
> _Ich bin mit dem, was du vorschlägst, nicht einverstanden. __  instead of:  __Ich bin damit, was du vorschlägst, nicht einverstanden. _
> 
> http://canoo.net/services/OnlineGrammar/Wort/Pronomen/PronAdv/Funktion.html?lang=en
> Is 'usually' the key word?


The keyword is _usually_. As I said in the beginning, I don't deny that _für das_ is the generally preferred variant.


----------



## Perseas

berndf said:


> The keyword is _usually_. As I said in the beginning, I don't deny that _für das_ is the generally preferred variant.


Alles klar!


----------



## JClaudeK

berndf said:


> The keyword is _usually_.


Aber da steht auch (wie von Perseas schon erwähnt):


> Pronominaladverbien sind in der Regel nicht Bezugswort für einen attributiven Relativsatz
> An ein Pronominaladverb kann in der Regel kein Relativsatz angeschlossen werden. Statt des Pronominaladverbs steht die Verbindung Präposition + Pronomen.
> 
> Ich bin mit dem, was du vorschlägst, nicht einverstanden. - _*statt: *_[TD]Ich bin damit, was du vorschlägst, nicht einverstanden. [/TD]


Das bedeutet, dass hier ein Pronominaladverb nicht empfehlenswert ist.


----------



## berndf

JClaudeK said:


> Das bedeutet, dass hier ein Pronominaladverb nicht empfehlenswert ist.


Das ist mir deutlich zu apodiktisch formuliert. Im Prinzip sind wir uns aber einig:


berndf said:


> As I said in the beginning, I don't deny that _für das_ is the generally preferred variant.


----------



## elroy

berndf said:


> Well, you said


 Yes, I didn't think "dafür" could work in the original sentence.  I still don't think "dafür, was" and "für das, was" are interchangeable. 


berndf said:


> If that's what you want to say then you would say


 _Ich interessiere mich nicht dafür, was er schreibt, sondern wo er schreibt._

I don't think it has to be "worüber."


----------



## JClaudeK

elroy said:


> I don’t think it’s just a matter of emphasis.
> 
> _Ich interessiere mich dafür, was er schreibt. _
> This could mean I am interested in the topic of “what he writes.”
> 
> _Ich interessiere mich für das, was er schreibt. _
> This means I am interested in his actual writings.


_Ich interessiere mich dafür, was er schreibt. 
"I am interested in the topic of “what he writes.” => Es interessiert mich (zu wissen), was er schreibt. 

Ich interessiere mich für das, was er schreibt.  _
This means I am interested in his actual writings.


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> I don't think it has to be "worüber."


If that is what you want to say, yes. _Worüber_ refers to the topic and _was_ about the actual writing.

And even if _was_ is used in a more general way, text and topic, I can't see how _für das_ vs. _dafür_ has anything to do with it.


----------



## elroy

I think you misunderstood my post. 





elroy said:


> the topic of “what he writes.”


 I meant “what he writes” as a topic (the topic of interest), not the topic(s) that he writes about.


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> I think you misunderstood my post.  I meant “what he writes” as a topic (the topic of interest), not the topic(s) that he writes about.


I see. Let me think. You might have a point.


----------



## berndf

berndf said:


> I see. Let me think. You might have a point.


_Ich interessiere mich dafür, was du schreibst. = I am interested in what you are writing because it is you who is writing it.
Ich interessiere mich für das, was du schreibst. = I am interested in what you are writing because it happens to be a topic I take interest in as well._

As a tendency, yes. But it is not a distinction that doesn't jump into by face as a native speaker. So, I don't know how much I see that distinction now because you talked about or because it is really carries that message.


----------



## JClaudeK

elroy said:


> I meant “what he writes” as a topic (the topic of interest), not the topic(s) that he writes about.


That's what I _did_ understand.
=>
_



Ich interessiere mich dafür, was er schreibt. 
I am interested in the topic of “what he writes.”  → Es interessiert mich (zu wissen), was er schreibt. (#21)
		
Click to expand...

_
Crossed with #25


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> Ich interessiere mich nicht dafür, was er schreibt, sondern wo er schreibt.


_Wo er schreibt?_ 

No, neither of these sentences have anything to do with the localtion where the writing takes place.


----------



## elroy

That was a new example I gave.  It wasn't meant to match any other sentence in terms of content.


----------



## berndf

I see. You could equally write
_Ich interessiere mich nicht für das, was er schreibt, sondern wo er as tut._

I prefer your version but I can't see a semantic difference of any consequence. So, it is more a matter of tendency and style than a robust semantic distinction.


----------

