# sit at the end of the table



## hhtt

I would like to form the phrase "sit at the end of the table". I think phrases in German is quite different than English.

Which one is "to sit at the end of the table"?

1. "Am Ende des Tisches sitzen" or 2. "Ende des Tisches sitzen am"

Which one is a better approach to learn German?

Thank you.


----------



## anahiseri

1.  
   it's  impossible  to put the preposition 
 at the end


----------



## hhtt

anahiseri said:


> 1.
> it's  impossible  to put the preposition
> at the end



Are there any other phrasings for 1? Or are such phrases in German unique?


----------



## anahiseri

if you make a complete sentence, you have options:
Wir sitzen am Ende des Tisches. (no emphasis)
Am Ende des Tisches sitzen wir. (emphasis on "wir"; it's _us_ who are sitting at the end of the table.


----------



## hhtt

anahiseri said:


> if you make a complete sentence, you have options:
> Wir sitzen am Ende des Tisches. (no emphasis)
> 
> Am Ende des Tisches sitzen wir. (emphasis on "wir"; it's _us_ who are sitting at the end of the table



Very interesting from the viewpoint of emphasis. Is the first one: "We sit at the end of the table" so with no emphasis?

But since "Am Ende des Tisches" the first bit, isn't emphasis on it, that is, isn't what wanted to be emphasized, it is being put in front?

Thank you.


----------



## Frieder

And please note that *to sit* can mean either *sitzen* or *sich hinsetzen*.



hhtt said:


> "to sit at the end of the table"



... can mean "Am Ende des Tisches sitzen" as well as "sich am Ende des Tisches hinsetzen".


----------



## hhtt

Frieder said:


> And please note that *to sit* can mean either *sitzen* or *sich hinsetzen*.
> 
> 
> 
> ... can mean "Am Ende des Tisches sitzen" as well as "sich am Ende des Tisches hinsetzen".



So do you mean there are two "to sit" in German? If so, are they exactly the same for "sit at a table"?

Thank you.


----------



## Frieder

_*Sitzen*_ is a state, _*sich hinsetzen*_ is an action. The action of _sich hinsetzen_ always precedes the state of _sitzen_.


----------



## anahiseri

1. is the normal word order.
2.   this order is used if you want to emphasize the subject.


----------



## Gernot Back

hhtt said:


> I would like to form the phrase "sit at the end of the table".


Do you mean that privileged position at the end of a table reserved for the most important person (like a president)?

That would be "am Kopf des Tisches sitzen".


----------



## bearded

hhtt said:


> So do you mean there are two "to sit" in German?


'Sitzen' is to be seated, 'sich setzen' is to sit down.  In English, 'to sit' can mean both.

Edit:
More correct: 'sitzen' is to stay seated.


----------



## hhtt

Gernot Back said:


> Do you mean that privileged position at the end of a table reserved for the most important person (like a president)?
> 
> That would be "am Kopf des Tisches sitzen".



No, I asked it in the loosest sense.


----------



## hhtt

Frieder said:


> _*Sitzen*_ is a state, _*sich hinsetzen*_ is an action. The action of _sich hinsetzen_ always precedes the state of _sitzen_.



I cannot follow this. In the first post I used "sitzen" as a verb. But you say "Sitzen" is a state, hence isn't a verb.

Thank you.


----------



## JClaudeK

anahiseri said:


> Am Ende des Tisches sitzen wir. (emphasis on "wir"; it's _us_ who are sitting at the end of the table.


 I don't agree. 

"Emphases on _wir_" only if you stress heavily "wir'.
Otherwise, emphasis is on 'am Ende des Tisches'.


Edit:
Nehmen wir ein anderes Beispiel (mit derselben Struktur):

"Ins Theater gehen wir." -  ist für mich ganz eindeutig eine Hervorhebung von "ins Theater",
mit der (unterschwelligen) Bedeutung: "Ins Theater gehen wir - und nicht ins Kino/ Restaurant/ .... ."

Oder siehst Du das anders?


----------



## anahiseri

Es kommt natürlich auch auf die Aussprache an, aber ich meine doch, dass
*Am Ende des Tisches sitzen wir . . . . *
eher verlängert werden kann mit  *. . . und nicht ihr*
als  *Wir sitzen am Ende des Tisches. *
Denn im Satz
*Wir sitzen am Ende des Tisches . . . und nicht ihr*
muss man das wir stärker betonen als im ersten Satz.
Aber das ist womöglich nur ein ganz persönlicher Eindruck . . .


----------



## anahiseri

hhtt, 
*sich (hin) setzen* is a verb that expresses an action, and *sitzen *is a Verb that expresses a state, same as in English
_like, stand, see, feel, remember. . ._


----------



## JClaudeK

anahiseri said:


> ich meine doch, dass
> *Am Ende des Tisches sitzen wir . . . . *
> eher verlängert werden kann mit *. . . und nicht ihr*


oder aber mit "*Am Ende des Tisches* sitzen wir *und nicht in der Mitte*."
es kommt natürlich ganz darauf an, was Du unterstreichst, d.h. hervorhebst!




anahiseri said:


> Denn im Satz
> *Wir sitzen am Ende des Tisches . . . und nicht ihr*
> muss man das wir stärker betonen als im ersten Satz.




Die Hervorhebung von _wir_ ist m.E. in beiden Fällen nur durch eine sehr starke Betonung zu erreichen. (für mich gibt es keine unterschiedliche "Intensität" der Betonung hier!)


----------



## anahiseri

Wie gesagt, das mag eine individuelle Ansicht sein, ich möchte keine Diskussion entfachen.

Also belasse ich es hierbei.


----------



## JClaudeK

anahiseri said:


> Also belasse ich es hierbei.


Ich auch. Das stand ja auch nicht zur Debatte (= ist _off topic_).


----------



## hhtt

anahiseri said:


> *sich (hin) setzen* is a verb that expresses an action, and *sitzen *is a Verb that expresses a state, same as in English
> _like, stand, see, feel, remember. . ._



This is very clear but... sitzen/to sit includes a motion/action: when one is standing they sit (down on something) so do not "sit/sitzen" expresses an action?

Thank you.


----------



## Hutschi

There are indeed two verbs. Or even three:
Sich setzen - to sit down and to sit in the sense of to sit down.
Sitzen - to sit - in the static sense.
Etwas setzen. - to set something. (With several meanings.)

You see the meanings are overlapping different in German and English.


----------



## JClaudeK

bearded said:


> 'Sitzen' is to stay seated, 'sich setzen' is to sit down.



Once more:


hhtt said:


> Which one is "to sit at the end of the table"?
> 1. "Am Ende des Tisches sitzen" or 2. "Ende des Tisches sitzen am"


"am Ende des Tisches sitzen" = to sit (= stay seated) at the end of the table


----------



## berndf

bearded said:


> 'Sitzen' is to be seated


No it is not. _Sitzen_ does not have a passive meaning. There is no causing agent. It only describe the state of sitting without any notion of somebody seating somebody.


----------



## JClaudeK

berndf said:


> _Sitzen_ does not have a passive meaning.


Never mind the passive meaning.
It's just to make clear (for hhtt!*) that the person is already sitting, in opposition to "he's sitting down (now)".

*We've already tried a lot of other means ....


----------



## berndf

JClaudeK said:


> Never mind the passive meaning.
> It's just to make clear (for hhtt!*) that the person is already sitting, in opposition to "he's sitting down (now)".
> 
> *We've already tried a lot of other means ....


_Is sitting_ is fine but not _to be seated_. That is simply wrong. It is the same kind of difference as between _the door is open_ and _the door is opened_, which many students of English famously confuse.


----------



## bearded

berndf said:


> No it is not. _Sitzen_ does not have a passive meaning.


Well, I did not mean it in a passive sense, like 'to be seated by someone'. I meant it in a static sense, like to be sitting, precisely like JCK explained. Linguistically it may be not  100% accurate, but I'm confident that the questioner understood what I meant. Maybe 'to stay seated' would have been more exact.


----------



## JClaudeK

Perhaps a picture will help hhtt.

"sitzen" = "to be in a sitting position"


----------



## hhtt

JClaudeK said:


> Perhaps a picture will help hhtt.



Thanks I have grasped but it hadn't taken my attention until now there was a such distinction.


----------



## berndf

bearded said:


> Well, I did not mean it in a passive sense, like 'to be seated by someone'. I meant it in a static sense, like to be sitting, precisely like JCK explained. Linguistically it may be not  100% accurate, but I'm confident that the questioner understood what I meant. Maybe 'to stay seated' would have been more exact.


I was sure that this is what you meant. But the difference is much more than a subtlety in English. It is as elementary as the distinction between _the door is open_ and _the door is opened_. From many discussions with French and Italian speakers I know that for them it sounds like splitting hairs. But in English, and in German, this distinction between _state per se_ and _caused state_ is absolutely elementary.


----------



## bearded

OK, berndf.  I have edited my #11.


----------



## Hutschi

In the passive sense:
_Er hat sein Baby an das Ende vom Tisch auf einen Babystuhl gesetzt. (Active) (example)
Sein Baby *wurde *an das Ende des Tisches *gesetzt*. (Passive)
His baby *was seated *by him at the end of the table.
_
The passive is used with "setzen".

(Edit: crossposted to others, compare with the picture in #27 from Claude.)


----------



## bearded

berndf said:


> I was sure that this is what you meant. But the difference is much more than a subtlety in English. It is as elementary as the distinction between _the door is open_ and _the door is opened_. From many discussions with French and Italian speakers I know that for them it sounds like splitting hairs. But in English, and in German, this distinction between _state per se_ and _caused state_ is absolutely elementary.


It seems that ''seated'' can be understood not only as a participle, but also as an adjective.  Please consider reply #5 by an English native speaker in this thread:
be seated
If so, my above indication_ sitzen = to be seated_  might be not_ completely_ wrong after all.


----------



## Hutschi

It is a very different point of view.

Ich sitze. I'm sitting.
Ich setze mich. I sit down. 
Ich wurde an den Tisch gesetzt, und ich sitze jetzt am Tisch.
I was seat at the table; and now I'm sitting at the table.


----------



## berndf

bearded said:


> It seems that ''seated'' can be understood not only as a participle, but also as an adjective.  Please consider reply #5 by an English native speaker in this thread:
> be seated
> If so, my above indication_ sitzen = to be seated_  might be not_ completely_ wrong after all.


The question is not if it is a participle or an adjective. The question is semantic and not syntactic. _Seated_ is always the the result of an action (i.e. a passive derivation of a causative verb). See also #6 which explains this nicely. _Sitzen_ has no such connotation.

Furthermore, #5 reads:


velisarius said:


> They are sitting down - in a seated state ("seated" as adjective)


Note that _sitzen_ is *not* a possible translation of _sitting down_. _Sitting down_ is again the result of an action. In German it is mandatory to use the reflexive causative form (_sich setzen_) in this case.

Bottom line: Whenever *any* notion of _causation_ is involved, _sitzen_ is out of the question and only the causative derivation _setzen_ is possible.


----------



## bearded

berndf said:


> The question is not if it is a participle or an adjective.


I know that this thread is not about English - and I really do not want to be polemic - ,but English native speakers don't seem to agree with you concerning the 'seated' issue, and it appears to indeed be a question of participle or adjective, in which this syntactic distinction influences/determines the meaning/semantics. Please see posts #7 to 10 in this thread:

"Be seated"... passive?.

In this context, I am also considering an analogy to some German verbs. If you say _Die Tür ist geschlossen, _there is nothing passive in the word 'geschlossen', which is used as an adjective here - I believe. _Die Tür ist geschlossen _is equivalent to _die Tür ist zu._
That's why I think that (unless there is an agent expressed) for me _I'm seated = I'm sitting = ich sitze.
_
Please see also his text: The Grammarphobia Blog: Stative seeking


----------



## berndf

bearded said:


> If you say _Die Tür ist geschlossen, _there is nothing passive in the word 'geschlossen', which is used as an adjective here - I believe. _Die Tür ist geschlossen _is equivalent to _die Tür ist zu._


Practical it pretty much amounts to the same thing but semantically there is a difference. _Die Tür ist geschlossen_ requires that someone at some point in time must have closed the door. Die Tür ist zu has no such connotation. The door might, e.g., have been produced in that position. There is no logical connection to an action of closing the door. It is the same difference as between _an opened door_ and _an open door_. Both _opened_ and _open_ function as adjectives and in practice there is hardly any difference. Yet the difference in semantics is present and using the one of the two that does not have the right semantics makes a sentence sound wrong.

Similarly, the adjective _seated_ requires that a person at some point in time must have _sat down_ (please remember that _sitzen_ cannot be used to express _sitting down_). The German _sitzen_ has no connection as to how the state started.

In the EO thread you are barking up the wrong tree. You are asking if _seated_ requires an action of another person to assign the seat to you or if it can simply mean "take a seat". In both cases, _being seated_ is the result of the action of _sitting down_.


----------



## JClaudeK

bearded said:


> That's why I think that (unless there is an agent expressed) for me _I'm seated = I'm sitting = ich sitze._






berndf said:


> It is as elementary as the distinction between _the door is open_ and _the door is opened_. From many discussions with French and Italian speakers I know that for them it sounds like splitting hairs.


For me, as a German (and French) speaker, it sounds like splitting hairs, too.



bearded said:


> If you say _Die Tür ist geschlossen, _there is nothing passive in the word 'geschlossen', which is used as an adjective here  [...]. _Die Tür ist geschlossen _is equivalent to _die Tür ist zu._


*+ 1*

cf.:


> Cambridge Dictionary
> *seated*_ adjective_
> *= sitting *
> The woman seated opposite him kept staring at him.
> You are requested to remain seated during take-off.





> Collins
> to be seated = sitzen





> Academic
> sitzen
> *1.*_ (hat oder ist)_ sit;* am Steuer / im Sattel sitzen* sit (_oder_ be seated)


----------



## berndf

JClaudeK said:


> For me, as a German (and French) speaker, it sounds like splitting hairs, too.


Then you have been living in France for too long. Saying _die Tür ist geöffnet_ when you mean _die Tür ist offen_ sounds just weird. I am surprised you haven't come across this issue as a German teacher. But admittedly, it is a bigger problem in English than in German because English doesn't have the distinction between Vorgangspassiv and Zustandspassiv and _the door is opened_ (as you frequently hear from French speakers) can also mean _die Tür wird geöffnet_.


----------



## bearded

Berndf, do you mean to say that all three (rather authoritative, I think) dictionaries quoted in JCK's above post are wrong?
Apparently, in usage _seated _is employed differently from _opened. _Here nobody said that _the door is opened _cannot be passive.


----------



## Gernot Back

Just as thought-provoking impulses: 

Would you say you _are seated _in English, if you are simply sitting on your haunches? In German, that would still be _(in der Hocke) *sitzen*_. 

Doesn't _to be seated_ literally mean that somebody assigned a _*seat*_ to you or, at least, that you have a seat. 

The _-ed_ suffix in English is also very productive in forming de-nominal adjectives*,* even if there is no verbal (participial) equivalent; e.g. _handicapped person_ (person having a handicap),_ four-leafed clover_ (clover having four leaves), _long-legged buzzard_ (buzzard having long legs), etc.


----------



## berndf

bearded said:


> Berndf, do you mean to say that all three (rather authoritative, I think) dictionaries quoted in JCK's above post are wrong?
> Apparently, in usage _seated _is employed differently from _opened. _Here nobody said that _the door is opened _cannot be passive.


If passive is such a red rag to you than forget it. My point was always _*pure* state_ vs. _state *caused* by a certain action _(grammatically this is not a voice but an aspect, namely the perfect aspect). Both, _being opened_ and _being seated_, are the results of *specific* actions while German _sitzen_ does not have such an implication.

I don't deny that there are overlaps where you might use _be seated_ in English and _sitzen_ in German. But that doesn't mean that it is appropriate to explain (as you did) the very meaning of _sitzen_ as _being seated_. There are many, many cases where this translation would completely wrong. E.g., I would be very eager to learn how you would translate _Das Rad sitzt fest auf der Nabe_ using _is seated_.

_Sitzen_ and _be seated_ only correspond in a limited range of applications of _sitzen_, namely where a *person* has previously_ *taken* a *seat*_. None of these three highlighted aspects are present in the core meaning of sitzen: It does not have to be a person, it does not have to the result of the action of sitting down and it does not have in involve an object one can describe as a seat.


----------



## Hutschi

Is "being seated" like "platziert" in German than?


----------



## berndf

Hutschi said:


> Is "being seated" like "platziert" in German than?


Or _hat Platz genommen_. Bearded has concentrated on the difference between these two meanings. That was probably my fault because I introduced the concept of _passive meaning_. But this has never been the point. Neither of these two meanings, _platziert sein_ and _Platz genommen haben_, has more than *some* semantic overlap with _sitzen_.


----------

