# Manchmal mache ich Fehler (word order)



## vaibhavm

Manchmal mache ich Fehler

Can I say above sentence in this way?  - Manchmal ich mache Fehler


----------



## ger4

'_Manchmal_ _*mache *__*ich*_ _Fehler_' is correct. The finite verb has to be in second position.


----------



## vaibhavm

* Holger2014*

Ja, sie sind sehr interessant. Aber sehen SIE, _da kommt schon der professor._ Gleich beginnt die Vorlesung.

What is the explanation for the above underline sentence. the verb _kommt_ and the subject _der professor_ has not came as per subject-verb position rule?


----------



## elroy

The subject does not have to come directly before or directly after the verb, although it often does. 

_Der Professor kommt schon.
Da kommt der Professor schon.
Da kommt schon der Professor.
Da kommt schon in die alte Kneipe, die in der Nähe des Bahnhofs liegt und die alle sehr gut kennen, der Professor. _

All of the above word orders are possible and correct.  The one ironclad rule is that the conjugated verb has to be in the second position.


----------



## ger4

In this sentence,  the verb is in position (2) as well but position (1) isn't occupied by the subject, as you said:

(1) Da
(2) kommt (finite verb)
(3) schon
(4) der Professor

In German, position (1) doesn't have to be the subject of the sentence. It is called the Vorfeld ("pre-field") in some grammars. I'll add a link with more explanations in a second.

Edit: Elroy explained it already
http://www.canoo.net/services/OnlineGrammar/Satz/Wortstellung/Stellungsfeld/Vorfeld.html?lang=en


----------



## berndf

vaibhavm said:


> What is the explanation for the above underline sentence. the verb _kommt_ and the subject _der professor_ has not came as per subject-verb position rule?


Elroy is right. There is no such thing as a "subject-verb position rule". There is only a "verb must be second-rule".


----------



## vaibhavm

* Holger2014 *
* berndf *
* elroy *


There are two videos 1 video saying which I have referred and 2 video which you have said.

_1. video name_-"Basic of german german word order-www.germanforspalding.org" _(3:25 minuts video) youtube channal - 'blitztag1' _


_2. video name- _"german word order the Basics german grammar lesson by ten things german" _(2:54 minuts video) youtube channal - ten things german' 

   In normal sentence , the word order is only verb should come second ?   _
  and
_
In question word, the order is - Question word + verb + subject + the rest (In question word, subject should  come after verb?)_


----------



## ger4

In question sentences,  the question word comes first, followed by the verb:
(1) Wer 
(2) ist 
(3) das?

In questions *without* a question word, the verb is in first position:
(1) Regnet 
(2) es?

You can find more explanations here:
http://www.canoo.net/services/OnlineGrammar/Satz/Wortstellung/Stellungstyp.html?MenuId=Sentence51


----------



## berndf

vaibhavm said:


> There are two videos 1 video saying which I have referred


No, it says the subject is "next to the verb", i.e. either before or after. This excludes among the word orders licensed by the verb-second rule the variants marked with * because another syntactic element comes between subject and verb:
_Ich mache manchmal Fehler_.
_Fehler mache  ich manchmal_.
_Manchmal mache ich Fehler_.
_Ich mache Fehler manchmal. 
*Manchmal mache Fehler ich.
*Fehler mache manchmal ich_.



vaibhavm said:


> In question word, the order is - Question word + verb + subject + the rest (In question word, subject should come after verb?)


In principal yes. Because of the verb-second rule combined with the verb next to subject rule, the question word forces the subject into third position, i.e. following the verb. An exception are questions without an introducing question word where verb is in first position: _Machst Du manchmal Fehler? _This is most likely due to a development in early Germanic: The word _whether_ = German_ weder _was originally a question word with the meaning _which of the two_?/_True or false?_ So the original way to ask _Do you sometimes make mistakes?_ was_ Whether makest thou sometimes mistakes?_ = German _Weder machst Du manchmal Fehler?_ Later the question word _whether = weder_ was dropped and lost its use as a question adverb.


----------



## elroy

Is there really a subject-verb adjacency rule?  I can think of numerous counter-examples.

_Heute kommt nach der Pause ein Film.
Das hat doch Peter gemacht!
Den Preis möchten offenbar viele. _


----------



## berndf

Yes, adverb(ial)s can sometimes come in between. The rule is strict only for complements, i.e. no object or predicative can come in between verb and subject.


----------



## elroy

Ganz so geradlinig ist das wieder nicht. 

Zumindest bei pronominalen Objekten geht die unterbrochene Wortfolge durchaus:

1) _Morgen besucht mich meine Mutter.
_
(_Morgen besucht meine Mutter mich_ hört sich sogar sonderlich an, außer man will _mich_ betonen.)

Mit substantivischen Objekten ist das auf jeden Fall keine übliche Wortfolge, aber ich hätte wahrscheinlich nicht pauschal behauptet, dass das regelrecht falsch wäre.

2) _Morgen besuchen Berlin meine Eltern.
_
2) ist zwar keine übliche Wortfolge, aber geht sie denn überhaupt nicht, nicht mal zur Betonung von _Eltern_?


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> Zumindest bei pronominalen Objekten geht die unterbrochene Wortfolge durchaus:
> 
> 1) _Morgen besucht mich meine Mutter._


That is indeed an exception because it collides with another rule: A pronomial complement precedes a non pronomial one. And that rule wins.



elroy said:


> 2) _Morgen besuchen Berlin meine Eltern._


This is ungrammatical and would require poetic license.


----------



## elroy

berndf said:


> That is indeed an exception because it collides with another rule: A pronomial complement precedes a non pronomial one. And that rule wins.


 But there's only one complement in 1).  _Meine Mutter_ is the subject, not a complement.

I think the upshot is that there are too many exceptions to the subject-verb adjacency "rule" for it to be of much practical use.  I was never taught such a rule, yet I managed to learn German word order pretty successfully.


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> But there's only one complement in 1). _Meine Mutter_ is the subject, not a complement.


I am using here the terminology of the valency theory of verbs that treats subjects objects and adverbial all as valencies of the verb and calls them all _complement_.


----------



## elroy

There are still counter-examples:

3) _Ich habe gesehen, wie dich die Kinder angelacht haben._
4) _Ich habe gesehen, wie die Kinder dich angelacht haben.
_
4) is possible, isn't it?


----------



## berndf

In subordinate clauses everything is upside-down. Not even the V2 rule applies there. Subordinate clauses need a completely separate analysis.


----------



## elroy

So it sounds like the rule applies IF at least half a dozen conditions are met.  Which brings me back to my previous point:

_I think the upshot is that there are too many exceptions to the subject-verb adjacency "rule" for it to be of much practical use. 
_
From a theoretical linguistics perspective it might be interesting to contemplate what syntactic rules hold and which ones trump which, but from a practical, pedagogical perspective I think presenting this as a rule may be counter-productive as an attempt to help students master German word order.


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> So it sounds like the rule applies IF at least half a dozen conditions are met.


The only real exception, I can think of is your 1) in #12. We all know that absolutely nothing what has been discussed in this thread applies to subordinate clause word order and any example from a subordinate clause is irrelevant.


elroy said:


> From a theoretical linguistics perspective it might be interesting to contemplate what syntactic rules hold and which ones trump which, but from a practical, pedagogical perspective I think presenting this as a rule may be counter-productive as an attempt to help students master German word order.


I would not assign the same systematic status to the two rules. The V2 rule is basic to the fabric of German(ic) word word while the verb-subject adjacency rule is more a something like a useful heuristic.


----------



## elroy

What about dative objects?

5) _Morgen hilft dem Mann seine Schwester._

Is that bad too?


----------



## Dan2

I think you may be "stacking the deck" here by using a pronoun ("seine") in the subject phrase: we expect a pronoun to follow its antecedent.  Why don't we first compare for naturalness:

Morgen hilft der Lehrer dem Jungen
vs
Morgen hilft dem Jungen der Lehrer


----------



## elroy

Which would be another caveat to add to the list!  If we can have adverbials (a very broad category), pronoun objects, and dative noun objects (albeit perhaps only in certain contexts) between the subject and the verb, then that doesn't leave much that we _can't_ have, especially if it's possible to have a sentence parallel to 5) but with an accusative object ("Morgen sieht den Mann seine Frau").

So far I seriously doubt the usefulness of this observation, even as a heuristic, for learners of Getman.


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> What about dative objects?
> 
> 5) _Morgen hilft dem Mann seine Schwester._
> 
> Is that bad too?


I would understand this as dialectal German with the meaning _[The] morning helps the man's sister_.  Do you manage to analyse the sentence to produce that meaning? 

But seriously, the sentence sounds weird in both orders. I cannot tell you why. Let's take Dan's example:
_Morgen hilft der Lehrer dem Jungen_ -- sounds natural
_Morgen hilft dem Jungen der Lehrer_ -- sounds weird but not ungrammatical.

Maybe we can say:_ V2_ is a grammar rule and _subject near verb_ is a useful heuristic for _idiomatic _word order. Agreed?


----------



## Dan2

berndf said:


> Maybe we can say:_ V2_ is a grammar rule and _subject near verb_ is a useful heuristic for _idiomatic _word order.


Yes, but I think we can go further than that.  Note that in sentences with an adverbial in Slot 1 the fact that an object can stand between verb and subject ("Gestern besuchte mich mein Bruder") doesn't have to be regarded as some special exception.  Rather it follows from a general rule:
After the verb, pronouns (be they nom, acc or dat) precede any full nouns (be they nom, acc or dat).
This covers both "Gestern besuchte ich meinen Bruder" and "Gestern besuchte mich mein Bruder".

"pronouns first" is also true if there are two pronouns, again regardless of what case the various elements are in: "Gestern gab er ihr ein Buch".  (Something needs to be said about the order of the two pronouns.  If one is a subject I believe it must come first.)

In fact the "pronouns first" rule applies even if the subject is in Slot 1 (a case we haven't been discussing here): Mein Bruder gab mir ein Buch.

So it seems to me that "pronouns first" is, like "V2", a rule of great generality, which should be established even before getting into the question of what you do with the subject if an adverbial stands in Slot 1.

Then returning to the case with an adverbial in Slot 1, we can say that with two full-noun verb complements, the subject normally (i.e., in the absence of any unusual emphasis) comes before any object complement: "Morgen besuchen meine Eltern Berlin". (But I believe that if the subject is so complex that having it precede the object would "strand" the object at the end of a long phrase, the object is placed first: "Morgen besuchen Berlin alle in unserer Reisegruppe, die diese Stadt noch nie besichtigt haben.")

Another rule for sentences with subject following verb:
- short adverbials can come between verb and noun-subject: Sonntags kommt ja/doch/natürlich/in der Regel die Mutter zu Besuch.

I've probably missed things worth noting.  I've tried to cover what's been discussed in the above "debate".


----------



## elroy

berndf said:


> I would understand this as dialectal German with the meaning _[The] morning helps the man's sister_.  Do you manage to analyse the sentence to produce that meaning?


 Damn it, bad example! How about this one:

6)_ An dieser Universität helfen den Studenten nur die Dozenten_.

"Nur" might make this word order more natural, perhaps? 

Dan, great analysis, and great point about long and complex sentences!  Yet another "exception"!


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> 6)_ An dieser Universität helfen den Studenten nur die Dozenten_.


Very good!


----------



## Dan2

But does the one NP being dative as opposed to acc. have anything to do with the sentence's acceptability?  How about:

An dieser Universität unterstützt die Studenten nur ein alter Dozent.
(sing. "Dozent" to avoid the die/die Nom/Akk ambiguity)


----------



## bearded

Dan2 said:


> does the one NP being dative as opposed to acc. have anything to do with the sentence's acceptability


I don't think so.

_An dieser Universität hilft den Studenten nur ein alter Dozent
An dieser Universität unterstützt die Studenten nur ein alter Dozent
_
Why, both sentences appear fully acceptable to me (but poor students!). And indeed instead of 'nur' you could insert any other adverbial (like 'jeden Tag' or 'gern').


----------



## JClaudeK

berndf said:


> _Ich mache Fehler manchmal. _


Diesen Satz halte ich nicht für idiomatisch.
_"Ich mache diesen Fehler manchmal."_ dagegen klingt (für mich) OK.
Wie kommt das?


> Regel : Kommt im Satz kein Objekt vor, steht das Adverb direkt hinter dem finiten Verb.
> https://deutsch.lingolia.com/de/grammatik/adverbien/stellung-steigerung


----------



## berndf

Einverstanden. Unidiomatisch aber nicht ungrammatisch.

Ich empfinde keinen Unterschied zwischen den beiden Sätzen.


----------



## elroy

Dan2 and bearded man, I see what you're saying about the dative vs. accusative thing.  I think non-adjacent word oder might be less problematic with dative objects (generally speaking) for the very simple reason that dative and nominative forms are never identical, so when the reader gets to the dative object, there is no doubt as to the meaning, whereas with an accusative object, the reader will most likely interpret the noun as the subject unless the verb does not agree in number with the accusative object (as in #27).


----------

