# Du hast völlig recht (ending)



## Bobfobbit

I've been learning German for a few months now, and at some point I got the idea to keep a document of all the all the sentences with interesting adjectives or strings of adjectives so that I could work my way through the terrible maze of German adjective declination. Here is one that is an utter mystery for me:

Du hast völlig Recht. (since völlig doesn't follow any article, why doesn't it have the strong ending -es?).

I'm sure I have many others, but if I look at the document too long, I get a severe headache.0:


----------



## Resa Reader

I think the answer is that "völlig" isn't an adjective here but an adverb (the verb phrase being "recht haben").
(Compare also with English: You are complete*ly *right.)

I'll give you a sentence where 'völlig' is an adjective so that you can see the difference:

Hier herrscht völlig*es*/total*es* Chaos. // Hier herrscht das völlig*e*/total*e* Chaos.


----------



## berndf

Resa Reader said:


> I think the answer is that "völlig" isn't an adjective here but an adverb (the verb phrase being "recht haben").
> (Compare also with English: You are complete*ly *right.)


I think so too.

Contrary to Engish, derived adverbs are not specially marked (there is no_ -ly_ suffix). Missing declensional endings indicate either adverbial (as in your example) or predicate (_der Ball ist *rot*_) use.


----------



## Hutschi

Bobfobbit said:


> ...
> 
> Du hast völlig *R*echt/*r*echt. (since völlig doesn't follow any article, why doesn't it have the strong ending -es?).
> ...



Hi, note the lower case spelling.
If you have older dictionaries or grammars, it may be written uppercase because of the reform of 1996. But it was revised 2004/2006.
http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/recht_haben/
Now "recht haben" is correct again and the Duden recommends it. It is more logical to be an adverb.
In case of noun, it seems to change the sense. It means "I have right" rather than "I am right" than.
But the reformers did not mean this. They separated the meaning from the spelling. Fortunately the revision of 2006 allows to use "logical" spelling again - in this case.

This uppercase spelling - even if it is correct - misguided you and you searched for endings.
 "Ich habe Rechtes." would change the meaning totally: It means for example, depending on context _I have something of the right wing._

PS:  (after reading #5) I did not make it clear enough that the uppercase spelling is correct, too. I said that lowercase spelling is correct again. I did not mean that the other one is wrong.


----------



## Gernot Back

Hutschi said:


> Hi, note the lower case spelling.
> If you have older dictionaries or grammars, it may be written uppercase because of the reform of 1996. But it was revised 2004/2006.


No, also new dictionaries allow both spellings: Puns like


_Recht haben und bekommen ist zweierlei_​ 

... only make sense that way!

http://de.wikiquote.org/wiki/Recht#Sprichw.C3.B6rter_und_Volksmund


----------



## Hutschi

I reffered to the lowercase spelling in #2 as adverb.  I added the lowercase spelling and did not remove uppercase. Later I  explained that both spellings are right now. 

A remark:
"Du hast (etwas) völlig Rechtes" - here "Rechtes" is derived from "das Rechte". 
"Du hast völlig Recht" - here the noun "Recht" it is derived from "das Recht".
In both cases it is accussative, but the first sentence is unusual.
"Du hast völlig recht" - here "recht" is an adverb. (It was a nomen once. But it changed to an adverb.)

Some grammars have a reduced amount of word forms and do not have "adverb". I refer to the grammars with adverb.


----------



## berndf

Hutschi said:


> I reffered to the lowercase spelling in #2 as adverb.


I don't think _recht/Recht_ can sensibly be interpreted as an adverb. The lower case spelling corresponds to the interpretation as a predicative adjective and the upper case spelling to that of an predicative noun.


----------



## Gernot Back

berndf said:


> The lower case spelling corresponds to the interpretation as a predicative adjective and the upper case spelling to that of an predicative noun.


I don't think that makes sense either, since a predicative adjective or noun would usually be combined with a copula verb, which _haben_ or _bekommen_ clearly aren't. Actually this particle behaves like a separable prefix of a verb even though it is already seperated in non-finite verb forms.

This reminds me of the the variable behavior of the verb _radfahren _before the reform in 1996: _radfahren _(infinitive with _rad _as a prefix of _fahren_), but "_Ich fahre Rad_" with _Rad _capitalized as noun.
(again: this is the pre-1996 spelling)

The difference with _recht/Recht_ is that we never wrote recht as a prefix of any verb, but actually I think that for reasons of consistency those who don't capitalize _recht in _"_recht bekommen_" should go even one step further and write it together (as a separable prefix of the verb *rechthaben or *rechtbekommen respectively). Those who do capitalize _Recht_,see it as an independent accusative complement of the verbs _haben _and _bekommen_ resp. and have no problem at all.


----------



## Alan Evangelista

Bobfobbit said:


> Du hast völlig Recht. (since völlig doesn't follow any article, why doesn't it have the strong ending -es?).





Resa Reader said:


> I think the answer is that "völlig" isn't an adjective here but an adverb



So the meaning is "you completely have reason".

It seems to me that "Du hast volliges Recht" is also gramatically correct and means "You have complete reason", even if it is not usual. Is that right?


----------



## berndf

That is a grammatical sentence but a completely different one with a completely different meaning. It could (depending on context) mean _The law is completely on your side_ or _You have perfect law_. But I couldn't imaging a context where one would say that.


----------



## Hutschi

Alan Evangelista said:


> So the meaning is "you completely have reason".
> 
> It seems to me that "Du hast volliges Recht"   is also grammatically correct and means "You have complete reason", even if it is not usual. Is that right?



Hi, "volliges" does not exist. It might be a typo. But even "Du hast völliges Recht" is not idiomatic.

There might exist: "Du hast volles Recht" - but it changes the meaning to something like:  _They granted you the full rights._

The default for "you are right" is "Du hast recht/Sie haben recht. You might strengthen it: "Du hast völlig/vollkommen recht" - "You are absolutely right."

The Duden recommentation (and my own one) is "recht haben", but "Recht haben" is allowed.

Source: "Duden | recht haben, Recht haben | Rechtschreibung, Bedeutung, Definition, Synonyme

"Du hast voll recht" is also possible but a kind of slang. (Kind of youth language with "voll=full" as intensifier.)
I do not exactly know whether this is in standard.

The problems with the phrase came up with the reform 1996. 2004/2006 the reformers allowed lower case again.

_*Edit: Cross-posted with Berndf.*_

We agree that "völliges Recht" has another meaning and that it is grammatically correct.
Only, I do not think it is idiomatic in current language.
I searched for it "völliges Recht". The phrase exists but many sources are old or in special context (völliges vs. teilweises Recht.)

I found only one occurence of "Du hast völliges Recht!", however.


----------



## Alan Evangelista

Danke für alle Antworten!



berndf said:


> That is a grammatical sentence but a completely different one with a completely different meaning. It could (depending on context) mean _The law is completely on your side_ or _You have perfect law_. But I couldn't imaging a context where one would say that.



It is quite odd that a simple change from an adverb to an adjective makes the interpretation of "Recht" as "reason" impossible. Probably it is one of these arbitrary things of languages. I'll just accept the idiomatic version.

"The law is completely on your side" seems a very common sentence in a legal context to me. When you say that you could not think of a context where someone would say that, I guess that you meant that some other sentence would be more usual, such as: "Das Recht ist ganz auf Ihrer Seite".



Hutschi said:


> "volliges" does not exist. It might be a typo.



It is. I meant "völliges"



Hutschi said:


> There might exist: "Du hast volles Recht" - but it changes the meaning to something like: _They granted you the full rights._



Shouldn't "Rechte" (plural) be used instead in this example?


----------



## berndf

Alan Evangelista said:


> I guess that you meant that some other sentence would be more usual, such as: "Das Recht ist ganz auf Ihrer Seite".


----------



## Hutschi

Alan Evangelista said:


> ...
> 
> 
> Shouldn't "Rechte" (plural) be used instead in this example?



This is difficult and depends on context.

In German this is singular in the context of our discussion. I will reword it: _Du hast volles Recht. The right is absolutely on your side._
I hope this exists in English. This is a general "right".
Plural: _Du hast alle Rechte. You own all the rights,_ like copyright, ownership etc.


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> I don't think that makes sense either, since a predicative adjective or noun would usually be combined with a copula verb, which _haben_ or _bekommen_ clearly aren't.


Predicatives with non-copula verbs are quite possible with appropriate context. Example: _Er strich die Wand weiß_.


----------



## Gernot Back

berndf said:


> Predicatives with non-copula verbs are quite possible with appropriate context.


Yes, but those are all object-predicative adjectives, not predicative nouns, or can you think of any example?


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> Yes, but those are all object-predicative adjectives, not predicative nouns, or can you think of any example?


In _radfahren_, Rad is obviously a predicative noun that got reanalysed as a prefix of a separable verb. The boundary between verb+predicative and a single phrasal verb is not always clear cut. Anyway, I still think that the lower case spelling correspond to an interpretation of _recht_ as an adjective and not as a noun. The interpretation as an adjective can be found in respectable sources, like DWDS (#2, sense 4).


----------



## Gernot Back

berndf said:


> In _radfahren_, Rad is obviously a predicative noun that got reanalysed as a prefix of a separable verb.



No, in the pre-reform _radfahren_ "Rad" was an incorporated accusative object, not a predicative noun *adjective*, since the _Rad_ does bot become a bicycle by riding it, wheras the wall does become white by painting it white.

Edit: Thanks @berndf, of course I meant predicative adjective, not noun .


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> incorporated accusative object


You are right (<-predicative adjective ).


----------



## Hutschi

berndf said:


> In _radfahren_, Rad is obviously a predicative noun that got reanalysed as a prefix of a separable verb. The boundary between verb+predicative and a single phrasal verb is not always clear cut. Anyway, I still think that the lower case spelling correspond to an interpretation of _recht_ as an adjective and not as a noun. The interpretation as an adjective can be found in respectable sources, like DWDS (#2, sense 4).




The problem here: Other than in "rechthaben" "Rad fahren  " was not "reformed back" to _radfahren_. Duden even does not give variants: Duden | Rad fahren | Rechtschreibung, Bedeutung, Definition, Herkunft

It is not consistent. I wrote this only because 2radfahren" is not standard spelling.

rechthaben -- preferred standard spelling, Recht haben -- allowed standard spelling

Rad fahren -- only standard spelling. Duden | Rad fahren | Rechtschreibung, Bedeutung, Definition, Herkunft and
DWDS – Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache
(The spelling "radfahren" is now non-standard according to Duden and to DWDS .)

The spelling reform does either not correspond to grammar or it changed the grammatical interpretation.


----------



## Alan Evangelista

Hutschi said:


> _Du hast volles Recht. The right is absolutely on your side._
> I hope this exists in English.



The only possible meaning I see in this sentence is:
The right (political group) is absolutely on your side.

I don't think you meant that, but rather one of the 2 sentences below:

The reason is absolutely on your side.
The law is absolutely on your side.



Hutschi said:


> _Du hast alle Rechte. You own all the rights,_ like copyright, ownership etc.



That makes more sense.


----------



## berndf

Alan Evangelista said:


> The reason is absolutely on your side.
> The law is absolutely on your side.


I am not sure _recht/right_ means _reason_ in _Du hast recht/You are right_. I think you are linking it too tightly to equivalent expressions in Romance languages (_tu a raison_).


----------



## Alan Evangelista

berndf said:


> I am not sure _recht/right_ means _reason_ in _Du hast recht/You are right_. I think you are linking it too tightly to equivalent expressions in Romance languages (_tu a raison_).



Right. "Recht" may mean raison/razón/razão, in French/Spanish/Portuguese but not "reason" in English. So Hutschi's sentence is probably about law.


----------



## Hutschi

Alan Evangelista said:


> The only possible meaning I see in this sentence is:
> The right (political group) is absolutely on your side.


Hi, this would be "die Rechte" and does not make sense in the sentence.

But you can say "The law is on your side" als you wrote.


----------



## Alan Evangelista

Hutschi said:


> _Du hast volles Recht. The right is absolutely on your side._
> I hope this exists in English.





Alan Evangelista said:


> I don't think you meant that, but rather (...):
> 
> The law is absolutely on your side.





Hutschi said:


> But you can say "The law is on your side" als you wrote.



Thanks for making it clear. The original translation to English didn't make sense.


----------

