# Ich hätte mir fast in die Hose gemacht (case)



## djweaverbeaver

*Moderator note*: Split off from this thread. 

Thanks all for the corrections.  I just have one question: why is it _*sich (dat.) in die Hose machen*_ and not _*sich (acc.) in die Hose machen*_?  I'm just wondering if there is actually a reason for this or if it's just something one has to know.


----------



## Frieder

The question is _wem in die Hose machen?_ Answer: _mir _(Dat.)
and not _wen in die Hose machen?_ Answer: mich(Akk.) 

Possible question: _wem (dat) in was (acc) machen?  _... don't let's elaborate on this ...


----------



## djweaverbeaver

@Frieder,  as pointed out in other threads, stating that it's because X answers Y question isn't very helpful because a non-native speaker wouldn't necessarily know that that would be the question to pose.  Quite naturally, if I had known that the question was *wem?*, then I would have known to use *mir *in this expression.


----------



## Encolpius

Here is a very interesting topic about why it is mir and not mich. It's a phenomenon which does not exist in English.


----------



## djweaverbeaver

Thanks @Encolpius; however, I don't think this completely answers my question.  

I understand why in _*jemandem eine Heidenangst einjagen*_ I should have written _*mir *_(actually, that's exactly what I would've said anyway.  I'm not sure why I wrote *mich*).  There are two objects: a direct and indirect one.  I just don't see why *sich in die Hose machen* uses a datve/indirect object.  Is there some other unstated, yet understood direct object here that I'm missing?


----------



## Kajjo

@DJ: Your post in #9 certainly is heart-felt for millions of native German children, too. "Asking the right question" does not help at all, if you do not know which case to use. It is a mild help if you already have a good _Sprachgefühl_, but neither native children nor foreigners have it. I remember very well asking my mother "And how do I know what to ask?" some decades ago. You are not alone with this criticism on the "Wem-dem" issue.

However, I do not understand the concept of "two objects, a direct and indirect"... what do you want to express with that? There are very many sentences with only a dative object. Dative ist not a "second chance" if the accusative object is already used up.


----------



## djweaverbeaver

@Kajjo,  I think it's because my _Sprachgefühl _led me awry here.  _*Jemandem eine Heidenangst einjagen* i_s/was clear because it follow the same paradigm as the English of the OP sentence, there a dative (indirect) object and an accusative (direct) object.  *Sich in die Hose machen* why the similarities end because in English we would say _to poop/shit oneself_, using a direct object.  I was just wondering if there was an teachable explanation for the dative here (for instance, is one really saying sich [Kacka/Scheiße] in die Hose machen?),  or if I just have to memorize the proper case as I've had to do with countless other expression.  I will point out the *sich anmachen* is perhaps more like the English _to poop/shit oneself _in this regard because *sich *is an accusative object here.


----------



## Kajjo

_ sich Kacke/Scheiße in die Hose machen?  <note: Kacke not Kacka>_

Nein, das funktioniert leider nicht. Man kann _sich in die Hose machen_, aber das, was man macht, wird dabei nicht gesagt. Stattdessen sagt man dann direkt:

_ sich in die Hose kacken/scheißen/pinkeln/pissen [vulgar]
 Er hat sich vor Angst in die Hose gepinkelt. [salopp]
_
I guess, you need to memorise which case goes with which verbs. There is no simple rule.

(Once again: The terms indirect/direct object are not helpful in German. I recommend to simply use the case to distinguish between dative, genitive and accusative objects.)


----------



## djweaverbeaver

I've seen *Kacka*, *Kacke*, and *Kaka*.  Is there a difference?

And with *sich in die Hose kacken/scheißen/pinkeln/pissen *would *sich *also be dative here?


----------



## Kajjo

djweaverbeaver said:


> I've seen *Kacka*, *Kacke*, and *Kaka*.  Is there a difference?


_Kacke_ [vulgar] is a German word. Kacka und Kaka are not, maybe imitating baby-speak if coming from a mother. Please do not use these non-words.



> And with *sich in die Hose kacken/scheißen/pinkeln/pissen *would *sich *also be dative here?


_Du hast dir in die Hose gemacht/geschissen/gepisst. [vulgar]
_
Yes, they all carry the same dative object.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Kajjo said:


> Yes, they all carry the same dative object.


_sich_, in _sich in die Hose machen_, is *not* a dative object but _dative of possession_:

_Ich greife auf *deine* Schulter. _> more idiomatically: _Ich greife *dir* _(dative of possession) _auf *die* Schulter.
Ich mache in *meine* Hose. _> more idiomatically: _Ich mache *mir* _(dative of possession) _in *die* Hose.

_
The _dative of possession _is limited to the body and clothes.


----------



## perpend

Would these fall into the same category, SR?
Ich putze meine Zähne. = Ich putze mir die Zähne.
Ich kämme meine Haare. = Ich kämme mir die Haare.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Yessir


----------



## perpend

Thanks for checking. Your explanation gave me a  moment, and brought back weird memories of my first semester of German, thinking "What kind of language is this?"  Anyway, your explanation about it being a possessive form was helpful.


----------



## djweaverbeaver

Thanks @Schimmelreiter!  When it comes to German grammar, you are a wealth of knowledge!


----------



## Dan2

djweaverbeaver said:


> (with) *Sich in die Hose machen* why the similarities end because in English we would say _to poop/shit oneself_, using a direct object.


Before I read this sentence I was going to express *my *surprise at *your *surprise at the accusative dative in this expression.  Now I understand better.

But "to pee/piss/shit oneself" is clearly an idiom (and - I think - a relatively recent one).  Consider: there are stories of people working in extremely cold environments using "fresh urine" to unfreeze an item. "The key was frozen solid to the frame, but Joe peed/pissed/urinated *on *it to free it" sounds most natural to me, not "Joe peed it".  So in spite of the idiom "to pee/shit yourself", these body-function verbs seem basically intransitive in English.  Thus, while I admit there are times when I have acc/dat uncertainty, my first choice for "sich" in "sich in die Hose machen" would clearly be dative.


----------



## djweaverbeaver

@Dan2

I'm sorry, I don't buy that line of reasoning.  _*Shit *_and *piss*_, pardon my French,_ have been in the language for nearly a thousand years, so I'm not sure what proof you have that would suggest that these are "relatively recent".  If anything, I would think that these verbs are modeled on two other old verbs used transitively: _* to wet*_ and _*to soil*_.  We say "*to wet/soil oneself*" just as we say "*to wet/soil one's pants/shorts/drawer/diaper/etc*_._"  Furthermore, with your example, you neglected the difference of whether the object is actually on one's physical person or not.  There would be nothing unnatural about responding "Yes, he *peed/pissed/shat them/himself*," to the question "Did Joe *pee/piss/shit his pants*?"  So in short, I would think it wouldn't be wise to rely on English structure to predict the German here.

**EDIT** Fixed contradictory last statement.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Don't confuse accusative reflexive _Ich scheiße/pisse mich __an_ (separable verb) with possessive dative _Ich mache mir in die Hose_!


----------



## perpend

I'm getting really seriously incontinent, right about now, but I agree with SR above that it's "possessive dative".


----------



## djweaverbeaver

@Schimmelreiter, that answers post #7, but not the points raised with Dan.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

I was referring to





djweaverbeaver said:


> There would be nothing unnatural about responding "Yes, he *peed/pissed/shat them/himself*," to the question "Did Joe *pee/piss/shit his pants*?" So in short, I would think it would be wise to rely on English structure to predict the German here.


and the wisdom of relying on English structure to predict the German.

_I shat myself. - Ich schiss mich an. _accusative reflexive
_I shat my pants. - Ich machte mir in die Hose. _possessive dative


----------



## djweaverbeaver

But those are not the same structures in either language...  The possessive dative had all but disappeared from English by the time Middle English came along.


----------



## perpend

I think it makes sense.

I shit my pants. (I shit in my own pants.)

We do actually say "I shit myself" in English, but it's slang, and not entirely different from "Ich mache mir in in Hose", but, the slang element would require context.


----------



## bearded

Schimmelreiter said:


> possessive dative _Ich mache mir in die Hose_


Since the dative is possessive, the expression corresponds to _Ich mache in meine Hose. _Is the verb 'machen' used intransitively here (is this at all possible), or is there still an implicit direct object?  Thank you.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

djweaverbeaver said:


> But those are not the same structures in either language...  The possessive dative had all but disappeared from English by the time Middle English came along.


which is why I doubt


djweaverbeaver said:


> it would be wise to rely on English structure to predict the German


----------



## Schimmelreiter

bearded man said:


> Is the verb 'machen' used intransitively here


Yes, it is.
cf. _Er hat auf den Boden gemacht.
_
In any case, direction must be indicated _(in die Hose/auf den Boden/in die Ecke)_. Absent direction, _machen _is not about movement (as in _We can't play Beethoven's first movement. It was dumped with the diaper._)


Historians, diapers used to be washed then of course.


----------



## Dan2

djweaverbeaver said:


> _*Shit *_and *piss*_ ..._ have been in the language for nearly a thousand years, so I'm not sure what proof you have that would suggest that these are "relatively recent".


Of course the *words *are ancient.  I was suggesting only that the expression "to X oneself", where X is one of the informal or vulgar bodily-function verbs, is current-idiomatic, and thus doesn't negate my sense that these verbs are basically intransitive.

Note also that "urinate" is simply a more formal variant of the "p" words, and fits syntactically wherever the latter do (_He peed into the cup/He urinated into the cup_), but "He urinated himself" seems odd.  Rather it would be "... in his pants" or "... on himself", adding to the sense that these verbs are traditionally intransitive.


djweaverbeaver said:


> I would think it would be wise to rely on English structure to predict the German here.


(I assume you mean "*unwise*".)  I referred to English only because *you *pointed to English as the source of your feeling that this "sich" should be accusative:


djweaverbeaver said:


> my _Sprachgefühl _led me awry here ... ... because in English we would say _to poop/shit oneself_, using a direct object.


So the whole point of my post was, "even if we accept your use of English to judge this "sich", I would vote for dative, because the English bodily-function verbs (one particular idiom aside) are intransitive".


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> _sich_, in _sich in die Hose machen_, is *not* a dative object but _dative of possession_:
> 
> _Ich greife auf *deine* Schulter. _> more idiomatically: _Ich greife *dir* _(dative of possession) _auf *die* Schulter.
> Ich mache in *meine* Hose. _> more idiomatically: _Ich mache *mir* _(dative of possession) _in *die* Hose.
> 
> _
> The _dative of possession _is limited to the body and clothes.


I disagree. A possessive dative would be_ Diese Hose ist mir_, a construct that is widespread in colloquial use but frowned upon in standard German. The _reflexive dative_ is semantically usually a _dativus (in)commodi_.


----------



## djweaverbeaver

@Schimmelreiter, that was a typo.  I meant "not wise" or "unwise".  Assuming the contrary would contradict what I said in post #17 and what followed; however, I'll admit that the fault was mine for not adequately proofreading.
@Dan2, your explanation still neglects to wet/soil o.s., which aren't exactly new structures.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

berndf said:


> I disagree. A possessive dative would be_ Diese Hose ist mir_, a construct that is widespread in colloquial use but frowned upon in standard German. The _reflexive dative_ is semantically usually a _dativus (in)commodi_.


canoo, at its English-language site, calls the _Pertinenzdativ _*dative of possession*, hence my use of that term.
_
_
I find _Ich habe mir in die Hose gemacht _sufficiently similar to _Ich habe mir an den Kopf gegriffen. _They're both idiomatically superior to the respective statements involving possessive adjectives:
_Ich habe in meine Hose gemacht./...an meinen Kopf gegriffen.
_
But _pertinentiae vs. incommodi_ is mere semantics as long as we agree, as I believe we do, that we're presented with free datives rather than dative objects here.


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> But _pertinentiae vs. incommodi_ is mere semantics


I a language forum I wouldn't call semantics questions "mere".


Schimmelreiter said:


> as I believe we do, that we're presented with free datives rather than dative objects here.


I would say _reflexive dative_ is a category of its own.


----------



## Kajjo

Das Reflexivpronomen (sich, mir, mich) hat bei reflexiven Verben die Rolle eines Objekts und steht abhängig vom Verb im Dativ oder Akkusativ. Ich sehe keinen Grund, hier Dinge komplizierter zu machen, als sie sind.

_Ich mache mir in die Hose. (sich in die Hose machen)_

Hier steht _mir_ im Dativ, erfüllt die Rolle eines Objekts und wie immer ist das Reflexivpronomen von der Person her mit dem Subjekt des reflexiven Verbs identisch. Alles in allem finde ich, dass die Bezeichnung "Dativ-Objekt" hier absolut gerechtfertigt ist, wenn sich alle über die Reflexivität bewusst sind. Canoo beschreibt es zumindest genau so: "Rolle eines Objekts".

canoonet - Verb: Reflexive Verben


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Das Verb ist nicht reflexiv: _Er macht auf den Boden. _
Ebensowenig wie etwa _greifen._
Daher die Parallelität:
_Er greift auf den Boden. Er macht auf den Boden.
Er greift sich in die Hose. Er macht sich in die Hose.

Er greift sich in die Hose _scheint mir ein Pertinenzdativ (lt. canoo _dative of possession_) zu sein, daher sehe ich diesen auch in _Er macht sich in die Hose _am Werk.

À propos _mere semantics_, @berndf 
Du hast in einem früheren Thread über freie Dative sinngemäß geschrieben, die Übergänge zwischen deren Typen seien fließend bzw. strittig, entscheidend sei, dass es freie Dative seien. Daher ist es in der Tat sekundär, ob einer nun ein dat. pertinentiae oder incommodi ist.


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> Das Verb ist nicht reflexiv


Natürlich ist "sich in die Hose machen"  reflexiv.


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> Daher ist es in der Tat sekundär, ob einer nun ein dat. pertinentiae oder incommodi ist.


Was ich noch nicht verstanden habe, warum die Unterscheidung zum Dativobjekt so viel fundamentaler sein soll. Wirklich wichtig ist das Konzept des indirekten Objekt ja nur in Sprachen, die den Dativ verloren hat.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Es gibt kein reflexives Verb _sich machen.

sich auskennen _ist ein reflexives Verb.

_machen _ist hier ein intransitives Verb (vgl. _Er macht auf den Boden._), so wie _greifen _in meinem Beispiel ein intransitives Verb ist. 

In
_Er greift mir/dir/sich/uns/euch/ihnen in die Hose._
ist der freie Dativ in der 3.P.sg. halt ein Reflexivpronomen. Das lässt doch nicht das intransitive Verb in die Kategorie der reflexiven Verben fallen.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Also ich seh' schon einen kategoriellen Unterschied zwischen einem
Dativobjekt _(Ich vertraue ihm) _
und einem weglassbaren freien Dativ _(Ich mache in die Hose/Ich mache mir in die Hose).
_
Der freie Dativ ist fakultativ; _Ich mache in die Hose _ist nicht per se reflexiv.


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> Es gibt kein reflexives Verb _sich machen._


Habe ich doch nicht behauptet. Ich habe gesagt "sich in die Hose machen" sei reflexiv


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Pardon, ich hab' #34 missverstanden.
Bleibt #37.


----------

