# Möchtest du mit zum Kino kommen? (word order)



## Sanantta

Hello people! I hope you're having an amazing day. First of all I'd like to say this is my first post in the German forum, so please excuse me if I'm writing this in the wrong place.

My doubt is as follows:

I'm learning German through several sources, one of which being an app called Memrise. Today I learnt this word, "mitkommen", and I also learnt that it is a separable verb. So, the sentence they give is:

*Möchtest du mit zum Kino kommen oder was?*

I've learnt that whenever you have two verbs, the second verb goes to the end of the sentence, and if that verb is separable, it goes without being separated. My doubt is that since you have "möchtest" as the main verb, shouldn't it be:

*Möchtest du zum Kino mitkommen oder was?
*
or maybe,

*Möchtest du zum Kino oder was mitkommen? *(although I kind of have the feeling this one isn't right).

This has me a little bit confused, so I'd appreciate your comments on the matter. Also, my level of German is really low, so if you people write in English, I'd also appreciate it.

Thank you all!!


----------



## Hutschi

Hi, welcome to the forum.
At first, the position of a verb depends on the kind of sentence.
Here we have a question sentence.
That is why the infinite verb is at the end. (There are some question types where this is not the case.)
The verb phrase is "mitkommen mögen", it builds a verb bracket in the question *Möchtest *du zum Kino* mitkommen*?
"Oder was?" (or what?) is a kind of question tag. (Similar to "don't you?" but with the meaning "Oder willst du etwas anderes tun? It is a second question.
So we can omit it when speaking about position.
It sounds a little bit impolite, but I want to concentrate at the main question.

Möchtest du _*mit zum Kino*_ kommen? "mit zum Kino" is a noun phrase, "mit" does not belong to the verb.


Möchtest du zum Kino *mitkommen*? "mitkommen" is a separable verb.
Pragmatically the meaning is the same as the same as "Kommst du ins Kino mit? - Here "mitkommen" is separated - it is the other kind of question, I mentioned above.

All mean basically "Do you want to come with us into the cinema?"
"Do you want to come *with us into the cinema?*" --- mit uns ins Kino
"Do you want to *come with us* into the cinema?" --- mitkommen

Möchtest du zum Kino oder was mitkommen?  (This is wrong, I described "oder was" is separate, it does not belong to the main question sentence.)

You can combine the phrases: Möchtest du mit ins Kino mitkommen? But this kind of redundancy is avoided in written text, it sometimes occures in colloquial language.


----------



## Sanantta

Vielen Dank, Hutschi!! I had the feeling "oder was" could be omitted to focus on the main question, so no, that was not impolite at all. On the contrary, it was really helpful!!

Thank you again!!


----------



## Hutschi

Hi, Sanantta, to add "oder was?" is often impolite. May be I was not clear enough here in English.
There may be exceptions in youth language. I am not sure.

In own sentences I would avoid it.


----------



## Sanantta

Oh, I get it! I thought you were referring to your omitting it from the sentence I wrote. My mistake. I just copied it the way they put it. That's a great piece of information; I'll avoid the use of "oder was". Thank you again, Hutschi!!


----------



## Dan2

Sanantta said:


> Today I learnt this word, "mitkommen", and I also learnt that it is a separable verb. So, the sentence they give is:
> *Möchtest du mit zum Kino kommen oder was?*


My response would have been, "Yes, _mitkommen _is a separable verb, but this sentence doesn't contain the verb _mitkommen_.  Hutschi, your answer was much more complete and useful, but would you agree with this basic response?


Hutschi said:


> Möchtest du _*mit zum Kino*_ kommen? "mit zum Kino" is a noun phrase


"mit zum Kino" seems to me more like a adverbial phrase.  For ex., it could be replaced by "heute", "langsam", etc.  Do you have an argument for viewing it as a NP, or was that just a typo?  Thanks.


----------



## Hutschi

May be I used the wrong words.
The function is adverbial, of course. The parts group with a noun.

"Yes, _mitkommen _is a separable verb, but this sentence doesn't contain the verb _mitkommen_."

But there were more sentences of this kind in the original, so I explained further on.


----------



## Dan2

Understood.  Thanks Hutschi.


Sanantta said:


> This has me a little bit *confused*, ...
> shouldn't it be:
> *Möchtest du zum Kino mitkommen...*





Sanantta said:


> ...Also, my level of German is really low


I don't know - sounds like the confusion is due to your sense of what's going on in German exceeding that of your learning material, at least in this case...


----------



## Hutschi

An additional hint, mostly we say "ins Kino" if the purpose is to see a movie.


----------



## perpend

Hutschi said:


> An additional hint, mostly we say "ins Kino" if the purpose is to see a movie.



I agree with that. Also, I think it's more common to use "ins Kino gehen" from what I've heard.

I have these phrases in my head:
Willst/moechtest du mit ins Kino? (I think this "mit" is slang, though it's common. I think of it more as an adverb.)
Willst/moechtest du mit uns ins Kino gehen? (This "mit" seems to me to be a preposition modifying "uns".)

In my experience, "wollen" is used more often than "moechten" since you are usually asking friends.

I agree with the others that "mitkommen" is not separable in the examples in the original post. (Though, I guess that could be debated.)

(Welcome, Sanatta!!!)


----------



## Hutschi

Hi, perpend, whether a separable verb is separated depends on the special sentence. If  you have an auxiliary verb and an infinitive separable verb it is not separated.

Möchtest du mitkommen?
Kommst du mit?
Ist er mitgekommen?

---
Ins Kino vs. zum Kino - see here: ins Kino //zum Kino | WordReference Forums


----------



## perpend

But, is "Willst du "mit" ins Kino" out of the question, Hutschi?


----------



## Hutschi

"Willst du mit ins Kino?" ist eine ganz normale Frage, neutraler Stil, auch "möchtest du mit ins Kino?". (This is a normal question, neutral style.)
Ähnliches gilt für andere Orte. (Similar you can use this also for other places.)
_Willst du mit in den Zoo?
Willst du mit nach Leipzig?_
Die Fragen werden sehr oft in dieser Kürze gestellt. (Questions are often shortened this way.)
Wenn der Kontext klar ist, wird es noch weiter verkürzt. "Willst du mit?" (If context allows it will be shortened further more.)

Beispiel: (Example
Ich sage:
"Wir fahren nächste Woche mit dem Dampfer in die sächsische Schweiz. Willst du mit?"
I say:
We will make a trip with the steamboat into the Sächsische Schweiz next week. Do you want to (come) with (us)?


----------



## Gernot Back

Dan2 said:


> "mit zum Kino" seems to me more like a adverbial phrase.


_Mit zum Kino_ is not one entity; it consists of two entities: the adverb _mit _and the directive complement of the verb (_kommen_) _zum Kino_.


----------



## Dan2

That's probably the correct analysis, but allow me to think aloud here...

In "Der Mann trinkt" there are clearly two entities, "der Mann" (NP) and "trinkt" (VP).  But at a higher level these two phrases combine into one entity, the sentence "Der Mann trinkt".

So I'm wondering whether there's reason to believe that (mit) (zum Kino) should be viewed as combining, at a higher level, into a single entity [(mit) (zum Kino)].  We might be able to test this by seeing if the phrase is allowable as a filler of Slot 1 in the "verb-is-always-second" paradigm.  So... How do you like:
"He doesn't mind leaving the house, mit zum Kino aber will er nicht."


----------



## Gernot Back

Dan2 said:


> I'm wondering whether there's reason to believe that (mit) (zum Kino) should be viewed as combining, at a higher level, into a single entity [(mit) (zum Kino)].


I think _mit_, as an adverb, should be viewed as combining with the verb _kommen _rather than its directive complement _zum Kino_ (in this case). That is exactly why _mit _eventually agglutinated as a separable prefix of the verb _mitkommen_. In this example


Sanantta said:


> Möchtest du mit zum Kino kommen oder was?


we have a still non-agglutinated form of the adverb (not the preposition) _mit_. That is the reason why _mit_, as an adverb, doesn't necessarily have to occopy the final bracket position of a German sentence.


----------



## JClaudeK

Dan2 said:


> How do you like:
> "He doesn't mind leaving the house, mit ins  Kino aber will er nicht."



Kein Problem - "aber" zählt nämlich nicht _in the "verb-is-always-second" paradigm , _auch wenn es mitten im Satz steht. ("mit ins Kino" occupies position 1 as  a _single entity_)


> und, aber, oder, denn, .....
> These ocupy position 0 and leave the verb position the same as in the preceding clause.
> Konjunktionen


----------



## Dan2

JClaudeK said:


> Dan2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you like:
> "He doesn't mind leaving the house, mit ins Kino aber will er nicht."
> 
> 
> 
> Kein Problem - "aber" zählt nämlich nicht _in the "verb-is-always-second" paradigm , _auch wenn es mitten im Satz steht.
Click to expand...

Right, I included the "aber" only because I thought it made the sentence sound more natural.  I assumed we all knew that "aber" was irrelevant to "slot" counting.


JClaudeK said:


> "mit ins Kino" occupies position 1 as a _single entity_


Good, thanks for confirming that.  (Gernot's last post didn't seem to address that issue one way or the other.)  (If you have any thoughts on "mit ins Kino" as an entity filling position 1, Gernot, I'd be interested.  Thanks.)


----------



## Gernot Back

Dan2 said:


> (If you have any thoughts on "mit ins Kino" as an entity filling position 1, Gernot, I'd be interested. Thanks.)


Well, these two entities don't only fill the pre-field, but both, the pre field and the pre pre-field of the sentence!


----------



## bearded

Gernot Back said:


> I think _mit_, as an adverb, should be viewed as combining with the verb _kommen _rather than its directive complement _zum Kino_ (in this case). That is exactly why _mit _eventually agglutinated as a separable prefix of the verb _mitkommen_.


I think some people (especially non-native speakers) are tempted to consider _mit _as a preposition in such expressions, because a non-explicit _mir / uns_ could be understood (mit ((mir/uns)) ins Kino will er nicht...). But I can see Gernot's point, and think that he is right in calling 'mit' an adverb.

But now I would like to take an imperative _unter die Lupe:  e.g. Komm mit ins Kino!  _Must such a sentence be parsed as ''Komm mit (verb _mitkommen_) plus exbraciation'' or rather ''Imperative Komm (verb _kommen)_ plus 'mit ins Kino' as a unit where 'mit' is an adverb?  How do native speakers perceive it? Thanks in advance.


----------



## JClaudeK

Dan2 said:


> Right, I included the "aber" only because I thought it made the sentence sound more natural. I assumed we *all* knew that "aber" was irrelevant to "slot" counting.


@ Dan2
Entschuldigung für die (anfängliche) Fehlinterpretation, ich unterschätze deine Deutschkenntnisse keineswegs! Beim Schreiben wurde mir dann klar, dass es dir  um _"mit ins Kino" occupies position 1 as a single entity _ging.
_(More natural_ (in spoken language) would sound to me: ...., mit ins Kino will er aber nicht.)

Die Regel habe ich  für Sanantta dazugeschrieben.


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> I think _mit_, as an adverb, should be viewed as combining with the verb _kommen _rather than its directive complement _zum Kino_ (in this case). That is exactly why _mit _eventually agglutinated as a separable prefix of the verb _mitkommen_. In this example


When separated it must still behave like an adverbial complement. And it is not uncommon that several adverbial complements jointly occupy on position as sort of an super-adverbial that represents the totality of the definitions, like _Hier und heute und auf diese Weise will ich Sie wissen lassen, dass..._ In this respect, Dan's analysis is not wrong, even it you can divide _mit ins Kino _further into two independent adverbials.


----------



## berndf

bearded man said:


> But now I would like to take an imperative _unter die Lupe: e.g. Komm mit ins Kino! _Must such a sentence be parsed as ''Komm mit (verb _mitkommen_) plus exbraciation'' or rather ''Imperative Komm (verb _kommen)_ plus 'mit ins Kino' as a unit where 'mit' is an adverb? How do native speakers perceive it? Thanks in advance.


I don't think it matters. Making a category distinction between _verb + adverb_ and _separable phrasal verb_ is only important, if the meaning of the phrasal verb cannot trivially be deduced from knowing the individual meanings of the base verb and the adverb. E.g. you could not guess the meanings of _absuchen_ and _abgeben_ solely by knowing _suchen, geben_ and _ab_. In the case of _mitkommen _this is different. In this cases both analyses are possible and the spelling _mitkommen _rather than _mit kommen_ is hardly more than an arbitrary convention. In other similar cases there is even no consensus view on the spelling, e.g.. _daraufkommen_ and _darauf kommen_ are both sanctioned by Duden even though there they do not postulate any difference in meaning (both are explained as _sich erinnern_).


----------



## bearded

> both analyses are possible <
Thank you, berndf, for your clear answer.


----------

