# Kommst du mit ins Café?



## AnnaJDT

Hello dears,

Here is a phrase: "Kommst du mit ins Cafe?" (literal translation: "Come you with in cafe?")

In my book this is translated like: "Do you come with me to the cafe?"

Now, if you closely analyse the German phrase, there is no mention of any pronoun. How did they know if it's "with me" or "with us" or "with them" etc?
Thank you very much!

Anna


----------



## Gernot Back

_Mitkommen _is a separable verb and means _to come along with sb._ This _somebody _does not have to be mentioned explicitly. If so. asks you _willst du mitkommen/kommst du mit_, it is of course themselves, who they mean.

Otherwise you would have a double _mit_; one as a separable prefix and another one as preposition:

_Kommst du mit mit mir?
Kommst du mit mir mit?_​


----------



## AnnaJDT

Thank you, Gernot Back! I'll note this down. 
Therefore if I talk in the name of a group of people that I represent, can I still use the same phrase: "Kommst du mit ins Café?". But here (in this context) it would mean: "Do you come with us..."
Am I correct?


----------



## Gernot Back

AnnaJDT said:


> Am I correct?


Yes!


----------



## sdgraham

AnnaJDT said:


> Thank you, Gernot Back! I'll note this down.
> Therefore if I talk in the name of a group of people that I represent, can I still use the same phrase: "Kommst du mit ins Café?". But here (in this context) it would mean: "Do you come with us..."
> Am I correct?



In idiomatic English, at least the American variety, we would say "are you coming with us ...?" 

"Do you come with us..." would sound strange.

Note that "come with" has an interesting existence in English as demonstrated in this thread from the English-only forum.

"Do you want to come with?"


----------



## AnnaJDT

Another quick question: would *"Kommst du mit mit mir?" *be _allowed _but considered uncommon or would it be_ blatantly wrong_? Will I be frowned upon if I use that phrase or can it slip through without much noticing? Thank you much. It's so nice to understand the different hues and shades of this beautiful language.


----------



## AnnaJDT

Hello sdgraham, thanks for your contribution! It was entertaining to read that thread as well, I wouldn't have guessed a similar phrase is not quite strange to Am.E.
Indeed, you are right, I mostly did a mot-a-mot translation that looks hurried, but the correct one is how you put it or perhaps another variant is: Would you (like to) come with us...? For text analysis at first glance, be it mainly for syntax or grammar or whatever purposes, I tend to dissect and cut up word by word trying to get to the essence of the matter. Next time I will ensure to also add a correct adaptation rather than just literal unpolished translation. I appreciate your insight.


----------



## Hutschi

In case of "them" it changes to "Gehst du mit ihnen mit?" - and you have to change the verb to "gehst" in your context and use "ihnen" explicitely.

"Kommst du mit ihnen mit?" - you can ask this in a letter, in an e-Mail or at the telephone.
It means "Do you/will you come together with them to me/to us?"

Depending on context, you can use "kommst du?" instead of "gehst du?" in such cases. But this is seldom, and hard to explain.

(You can use it for example, if you go together with the other group and you will meet them somewhere.)


----------



## Hutschi

AnnaJDT said:


> Another quick question: *"Kommst du mit mit mir?" *would be _allowed _but considered uncommon or would it be_ blatantly wrong_? Will I be frowned upon if I use that phrase or can it slip through without much noticing? Thank you much. It's so nice to understand the different hues and shades of this beautiful language.



I think it is correct under three conditions:
1. You agreed about using "du" or you are relatives - and you meen a single person.
2. You want to use a light (enjoying) stile.
3. You really want that the other comes with you. It is more than just a phrase, it is an invitation. It shows that you'd enjoy it and want it.

You cannot say this to your boss, except in a private sphere.


----------



## AnnaJDT

Great explanation, thanks! I know I'm pushing my luck, but another combination just sparked to mind: how about "Kommst du mit mir?"
In this case, the verb "kommen" is used, not the verb "mitkommen". How does this sound, is it by any chance correct? As a foreigner, if I didn't know of the existence of "mitkommen" , obviously I would never be tempted to use it and would rather come up with something as this, instead.


----------



## Hutschi

"Kommst du mit mir?" is correct in coll. language and it is used if you stress "mir".  It omits the second "mit" but keeps an empty trace.
It means "Do you come with Are you coming with me (or will you go with somebody else?"
But usually (without context) it seems to be incorrect.

If a father says to his son, for example: "Kommst du jetzt mit mir?" it may mean "Hurry up, I do not have time until eternity, we want to start!" - There are a lot of variations for this, and the key is the intonation in the fitting situation. "Kommst du jetzt endlich mit mir mit?"/"Kommst du jetzt endlich mit?"/"Kommst du jetzt endlich?" ...


Note that "Gehst du mit mir?" can have two meanings. It can simply mean "go" (Do you goWill you start with me now?/leave with me now?) - But in certain circumstances it may be "do you want to be my girlfriend/friend?"/"Is it really true that you want to be my girlfriend/friend?" - it is not the best way. And it depends on intonation and stress and may result in contrary.


----------



## exgerman

While I understand that this post is about German, not English, I want to stress SDG's point that _do you come? _and _do you go? _occur in English only under very unusual circumstances and are not at all translations of _kommst du?_ or _gehst du?_

They mean _are you in the habit of coming (_or_ going) with me?_ The simple English present tense (with _do_ as an auxiliary in questions) refers to habitual action, and can't refer to an individual event. _Do you come with me?_ is even stranger in English than _kommst du dauernd mit mir?_ would be in German.


----------



## Hutschi

I see. How can I translate this properly into English?

Do you want  accompanying me?


----------



## sdgraham

Hutschi said:


> I see. How can I translate this properly into English?
> 
> Do you want  accompanying me?



As far as I can see, it's already in English , but idiomatic English would be "Do you want (or wish) to accompany me." 

"Accompany" is rather formal, however.

Normally we would say "Do you want to go with me." and let the context and intonation resolve the same sort of ambiguity mentioned in the last paragraph of No. 11.


----------



## Hutschi

Thank you. I thought it was "Denglish" or "Genglish" - a false friend.


----------



## Gio77

Hallo,

Eine weitere Frage zu dem originalen Satz "_Kommst du mit ins Cafe?_": das Verb "mitkommen" ist trennbar; sollte es daher nicht "Kommst du ins Cafe *mit*" lauten?

Das ist wohl eine "alte" Frage, die ich seit jeher gehabt habe, denn ich habe schon viele Beispiele dieser Art gesehen, wo die trennbare Partikel nicht da ist, wo sie eigentlich sein sollte (d.h. am Ende des Satzes).

Vielen Dank!


----------



## AnnaJDT

Thanks everyone!
Hutschi, I wish grammar books contained explanations and examples of the kind you offer here, "by default".

exgerman: You raise a valid point. Apologies for the mistake. I haven't learnt the present continuous tense in German yet, I don't even know if it exists. I equivalated "du kommst"(present tense) with "you come" rather than "are you coming" (continuous) or any other acceptable variant, in a very rough translation, because using the same tense in translation frankly helps me remember the original idiom better and easier. It's just my own method and I should have skipped it and used the formal, polished translation here. 

Another example, in Spanish "firecracker" is called "buscapiés", the ad-litteram translation of which is "search feet". For me it makes sense to remember the most faithful translation ("search feet") - and perhaps even mentally visualise cartoon-like screams and feet dancing above sparkles, even if it's not the most correct one, but rather the one more reminiscent of the original format, structure and "feel" of the idiom. 

I love it there is a grammar police here - in a very positive sense dare I say it! Best language forum I've seen so far, without having to search much. Aren't I lucky!


----------



## Hutschi

Gio77 said:


> Hallo,
> 
> Eine weitere Frage zu dem originalen Satz "_Kommst du mit ins Cafe?_": das Verb "mitkommen" ist trennbar; sollte es daher nicht "Kommst du ins Cafe *mit*" lauten?
> 
> Das ist wohl eine "alte" Frage, die ich seit jeher gehabt habe, denn ich habe schon viele Beispiele dieser Art gesehen, wo die trennbare Partikel nicht da ist, wo sie eigentlich sein sollte (d.h. am Ende des Satzes).
> 
> Vielen Dank!



Nicht ganz einfach zu beantworten.
_Normalerweise_ wäre das Partikel am Ende, und der Satz ist auch korrekt, wenn es am Ende ist.
_Normalerweise_ ist die Form in kurzen Sätzen, bei der das Partikel nicht am Ende ist, regional oder umgangssprachlich.

Hier aber kämpfen zwei Prinzipien: Das oben genannte und die feste Form "Kommst du mit ...?" "Kommst du mit ins Café/ins Kino/auf den Ball/usw.?"

Nach meinem Gefühl sind beide Formen korrekt.
Die Form "Kommst du mit ins Café?" hebt den Ort besonders hervor, weil er ins Nachfeld verschoben wurde, und er hebt "Kommst du mit" hervor, weil es zusammenbleibt. Pragmatisch gesehen würde ich es sogar vorziehen. Das ist aber nicht allgemeingültig. Beispiel: Bei "Streichst du den Fensterrahmen an?" muss "an" hinten stehen.


----------



## AnnaJDT

I hope googletranslate helps with the above. Ich verstehe nicht... but it might as well work as motivation to speed up the learning on my behalf. Good day!


----------



## Hutschi

Usually, the particle of separable verbs is at the end of a sentence. 
Usually, if the particle is not at the end in a short sentence, it is regional language or colloquial.

But in our case two principles are "fighting".
The one I mentioned above, and the fix form "Kommst du mit ...?" as in "Kommst du mit ins Café/ins Kino/auf den Ball/usw.?"

In my opinion both forms are correct.
But you emphasize "ins Café/ins Kino/auf den Ball" if you put it to the end in this sentence.
And you emphasize "Kommst du mit" - if you use this formula.
So by pragmatic reasons I prefer the last.

However, this is no general rule.
In many cases you cannot move the particle away from the end.  Example; in "Streichst du den Fensterrahmen an?" "an" has to be at the end.


----------



## Gio77

Danke Hutschi!

Sorry AnnaJDT, I started writing in German without thinking that you started in English...
So, as a rule of thumb, it would be safer always putting the particle at the end, as this should be *the* rule and never considered a mistake.



> Usually, if the particle is not at the end in a short sentence, it is regional language or colloquial.


Anyway I have seen such usage even within an exercise in a grammar book edited by a famous German publisher (I don't have it at the moment, so I can't quote).


----------



## Hutschi

You will find a lot of examples where it is possible.
But you also will also find a lot of examples where it is not possible.
Anna Seghers, for example, used moving words behind the particle lots of time, and it was her style.

In the Bible it was very frequent.

I'll give some examples where I would not move the particle, and some where it is possible.

(I use "moving the particle" not in a strict linguistic sense - I do not know whether the particle is moved or the other words are moved. I just use it in a pragmatic sense.)

 Possible:
Ich gehe in das Haus _hinein_. Ich gehe _hinein _in das Haus.
Ich schüttle die Äpfel vom Baum herunter. Ich schüttle die Äpfel herunter vom Baum. (You cannot move "die Äpfel" to the end.)

Impossible:
Ich mache das Zimmer sauber.
Ich lege den Teppich aus.

---
Example from the Luther bible, Genesis:
Und Gott sprach: _Die Erde *bringe hervor *lebendiges Getier, _ein jedes  nach seiner Art: Vieh, Gewürm und Tiere des Feldes, ein jedes nach  seiner Art.

This sounds poetic today.

Today it would be 

Und Gott sprach: Die Erde *bringe *lebendiges Getier *hervor*, ...

---

There is a special case with lists:

Ich kaufe Äpfel ein. (You cannot move "ein".)

But following is possible;

Ich kaufe ein:
1 kg Äpfel, 
5 Birnen,
1 Brot, und 
500 g Käse


----------



## Gio77

Interesting Hutschi. If you and all German native speakers feel that something would be right whereas something absolutely not, I would think that there must be some sort of rule also about this phenomenon.
Referring to your examples, it seems to be possible when the particle is put before a prepositional object:

Ich gehe _hinein _in das Haus.
Ich schüttle die Äpfel _herunter _vom Baum.
Kommst du _mit _ins Cafè?

Could it be? Can German native speakers think of other examples which could confute this assumption?


----------



## Hutschi

I have also the feeling there is a rule, but I cannot tell it exactly.

I try another example: separable verbs with "ab":

ablegen - Ich lege den Mantel auf dem Stuhl ab. 
Ich lege ihn ab auf dem Stuhl. (possible but very coll.) Ich lege ab ihn auf den Stuhl (wrong, even in coll. language)

abgeben - 
Ich gebe dir etwas davon ab. 
Ich gebe dir etwas ab davon. (often used, at least coll.)
but wrong, even coll.: ich gebe ab dir etwas davon

abwaschen - 
Ich wasche das Geschirr ab. 
Ich wasche das Geschirr auf dem Tisch ab. 
but wrong: ich wasche das Geschirr ab auf dem Tisch. (This does not work in coll. language, but I would understand it. If I say: ich wasche das Geschirr ab, auf dem Tisch. - it works, because it is an apposition, and it omitts some parts, it is short for the sentence: das da auf dem Tisch steht.)

abwischen - Ich wische die Tafel ab.
Ich wische die Tafel mit dem Lappen ab.
Ich wische die Tafel ab mit dem Lappen. (Coll., style is bad.)
Ich wische die Tafel ab, mit dem Lappen. (Standard language)

I suppose, but this is my hypothesis for some cases:

It is often possible to reduce a dependent sentence - up to down to a word or phrase.
If this occurs, it may be re-interpreted to another coll. form (in our example without comma).

Another explanation, this seems more probable/likely to me:
In former times (500 years ago) it was not standard to put the particle to the end. This became standard later.
Coll. language keeps older standards alive.


----------



## Gio77

Your final suppositions are interesting.
From your examples I can see that this structure (particle not at the end) is _not always_ acceptable _anytime _we have a prepositional object, but, at the same time, a prepositional object is needed in order to apply this "movement", or at least examples _without_ prepositional objects are not mentioned in this thread: obviously I am now wondering if such examples do exist..
In any case thank you so far!


----------



## Hutschi

You are welcome!


----------



## AnnaJDT

Hello again, a lot of "ink" has flown on the subject since last week so, needless to say, I am delighted, can't thank you enough. Today I had time to read more carefully through the entire discussion from the beginning and make notes.
The examples given by Hutschi are very interesting. For the moment, I feel I can *"infer"* some rules such as:

_abwischen - 1. Ich wische die Tafel ab. (correct)
2. Ich wische die Tafel mit dem Lappen ab. (correct)
3. Ich wische die Tafel ab mit dem Lappen. (Coll., style is bad.)

_In English:
I wipe (wische) the board (ab). --> "the board" = direct complement that refers to the verb "wipe" (what do I wipe? The board.)
I wipe (wische) the board with the rag (ab). --> "the board" = dir. compl; "with the rag" = indir. compl (both complements refer to the verb "wipe").
I wipe (wische) the board (ab) with the rag. --> incorrect.
_Therefore maybe the complements that refer to the same separable verb shouldn't be "cut"/disrupted/interrupted by the particle of that verb, hence why the third example is INCORRECT. 
To make this CORRECT, (here) add a simple comma. _As you said, it is a sign of _omission_: I can build a phrase in a certain way, that is correct, after which, as I speak, I have new ideas that require that I rearrange the (already spoken) phrase. What do I do to avoid this trouble? I only put a comma (slight pause in speech) and continue with the new ideas (in this case, the second complement) in a _natural flowing sequel_. I wipe (wische) the board (ab) [,] with the rag.

If my *assumption *turns out true, I will revisit you and make a statement, so I am bookmarking this thread. Have a great day! Anna


----------



## Gio77

Hello Anna!



AnnaJDT said:


> I wipe (wische) the board (ab) with the rag. --> incorrect.
> _Therefore maybe the complements that refer to the same separable verb shouldn't be "cut"/disrupted/interrupted by the particle of that verb, hence why the third example is INCORRECT. _



It _should_ be that way, and in any case this is related to the "major rule" about separable verbs: particle "goes" - or rather in linguistic terms _remains _- at the end of the verb phrase. But your first example itself, among the others by Hutschi, shows that this often does not happen:

*Kommst *du *mit *ins Cafè?

Here you can see that, although the complement "ins Cafè" is referred to "kommen", it is split by the particle and still the sentence sounds perfectly ok to native speakers, or even better than "Kommst du ins Cafè mit?". Nevertheless I suppose that a phrase like "Kommst du mit morgen?" is perceived as wrong... Is it true? If so, I wonder why the first one is ok and the latter is not...
Another example, given as good sounding, was "ich *schüttle *die Äpfel *herunter *vom Baum". At the same time, though, something like "ich *wasche *das Geschirr *ab *auf dem Tisch" would not work - as Hutschi said, although the two structures are syntactically identical!

So, to sum up while keeping into account the different assumptions so far, what I am wondering about is:
1) When are exceptions to the separable verbs rule possible?
2) Why do same syntactical structures sound with some words right and with other words wrong?
3) Are these exceptions possible only with prepositional objects (...mit ins Cafè, ...ab auf dem Tisch, ...herunter vom Baum, etc.) or also without (i.e. direct objects, adverbs...)?

Contributors are welcome...


----------



## Hutschi

Gio77 said:


> "Kommst du mit morgen?" is perceived as wrong... Is it true? ...



That is perfectly true. It is perceived wrong. But with a very little change it becomes correct: "Kommst du mit? Morgen?" 
Of course this is colloquial, but coll. language has its rules. And it is a coll. situation.
"Morgen?" is a very much reduced sentence on its own.
Expanded it is: "Kommst du mit? "Kommst du morgen mit?"


----------



## cuchicu

Hello
my doubt is with the position of "mit", if the verb is mitkommen, why do you say "kommst du mit ins Cafe"? Shouldn't it be kommst du ins Cafe mit? 
Thanks!


----------



## Hutschi

cuchicu said:


> Hello
> my doubt is with the position of "mit", if the verb is mitkommen, why do you say "kommst du mit ins Cafe"? Shouldn't it be kommst du ins Cafe mit?
> Thanks!



That is true, it is the standard.
In coll. language, the other form is used, however, to emphasize either "mitkommen". 
It may also sound a little bit angry, and getting out of patience, depending on situation. The standard position is neutral.


----------

