# Er möchte die Demokratie mit aufbauen. (function "mit")



## Borteg

Hello everybody,
Nach seiner Rückkehr aus dem Exil wechselt Willy Brandt in die deutsche Politik: *Er möchte die Demokratie mit aufbauen*.
What is the rule of mit in this sentence? Why author uses it? I think, author could make this sentence without mit!?


----------



## bearded

Borteg said:


> What is the r*o*le of mit


Hello
'Mit' is an adverb here: it means ''together with others''.
_He would like to construct democracy in co-operation with others._
See this thread: sitzt bei vielen Beratungen mit am Tisch.


----------



## manfy

I agree with bearded concerning semantics.
But this sentence below just looks 


Borteg said:


> Er möchte die Demokratie *mit aufbauen.*


Is this post 2006 spelling?

Had it been written before 2006, 'mit' would have been a verb-prefix similar to: *mit*helfen, *mit*arbeiten, *mit*lachen, *mit*fahren, etc. etc.
The meaning is still the same as bearded showed above: "mit" adds ''together with others'' to the core meaning of the verb.


----------



## bearded

manfy said:


> Is this post 2006 spelling?


When 'mit' is an adverb, that spelling looks quite normal to me (but, of course, you are the native.). I don't perceive 'mit' as a separable-verb particle here.
Cf. #5 mit auslösen


----------



## Demiurg

There's usually a slight difference:

Er möchte mit ins Kino gehen. (adverb + verb _gehen_)
Er möchte ins Kino mitgehen. (verb _mitgehen_)

But I guess in this case both variants are possible:

Er möchte die Demokratie mit aufbauen. (_adverb _+ verb _aufbauen_)
Er möchte die Demokratie mitaufbauen. (verb _mitaufbauen_)


----------



## Kajjo

Demiurg said:


> There's usually a slight difference:
> 
> Er möchte mit ins Kino gehen. (adverb + verb _gehen_)
> Er möchte ins Kino mitgehen. (verb _mitgehen_)


 



Borteg said:


> Er möchte die Demokratie mit aufbauen.


This sounds absolutely idiomatic to me, including the separate "mit" as adverb.


----------



## manfy

Demiurg said:


> There's usually a slight difference:
> 
> Er möchte mit ins Kino gehen. (adverb + verb _gehen_)
> Er möchte ins Kino mitgehen. (verb _mitgehen_)


 Good example!! An even better one that shows that it is not interchangable semantically:
Er möchte mit am Tisch sitzen. 
Er möchte am Tisch mitsitzen.  (semantic nonsense because "mitsitzen" does not exist. [except maybe in the context of a prison sentence...but that's a semantically different type of "sitzen"!])



Demiurg said:


> Er möchte die Demokratie mit aufbauen. (_adverb _+ verb _aufbauen_)
> Er möchte die Demokratie mitaufbauen. (verb _mitaufbauen_)


If a difference exists, I can't see it. For me the first sentence makes only sense as a typo.


----------



## Kajjo

manfy said:


> f a difference exists, I can't see it. For me the first sentence makes only sense as a typo.


Interesting. I feel the "mit aufbauen" as entirely idiomatic.

For there is a notable difference in stress pattern and I clearly say "mit aufbauen", not "mitaufbauen".


----------



## manfy

Kajjo said:


> Interesting. I feel the "mit aufbauen" as entirely idiomatic.
> 
> For there is a notable difference in stress pattern and I clearly say "mit aufbauen", not "mitaufbauen".


 I may be missing something here, but I really don't get what "mit" as an adverb would do there.
In the good old verb prefix form:
"...wollte die Demokratie *mit*aufbauen."
The prefix 'mit' is clearly stressed and there is no pause between 'mit' and 'aufbauen'. It's one word.
The meaning is: ...he wants to help build a democratic system (ie. work together with others who want the same or those who have already started the process)


----------



## Kajjo

manfy said:


> The prefix 'mit' is clearly stressed and there is no pause between 'mit' and 'aufbauen'. It's one word.


For me, too, if I speak "mitaufbauen".

However, the title sentence I would pronounce "mit aufbauen". The "mit" is an adverb for me.


----------



## manfy

Kajjo said:


> However, the title sentence I would pronounce "mit aufbauen". The "mit" is an adverb for me.


Hmmm...fair enough! Now that I've mulled it over for a while, I can accept your argument. You just want to stress 'auf'.
Fine, I can handle that.
But now I'm really interested to see how you're going explain the semantic difference to a non-native speaker. I for one don't get it!


----------



## διαφορετικός

I think "mitaufbauen" and "mitsitzen" are not German words, they do not exist.


----------



## berndf

manfy said:


> I may be missing something here, but I really don't get what "mit" as an adverb would do there.
> In the good old verb prefix form:


I am not sure what your problem is. A verbal prefix is nothing else than a clitic adverb. And here it is not clitic, i.e. it is a normal adverb.


----------



## manfy

berndf said:


> I am not sure what your problem is a verbal prefix is nothing else than a clitic adverb. And here it is not clitic, i.e. it is a normal adverb.


Hmm...but the meaning of the adverb version escapes me. Completely!

I'm trying to rationalize it with similar forms like:

Wir sollten uns dazusetzen.   -> We should join them.
Wir sollten uns dazu setzen.   -> We should sit down for that.

Wir sollten das zusammenbauen.   ->  We should put it together.
Wir sollten das zusammen bauen.   ->  We should build that together.

Wir sollten das mitaufbauen.   ->  We should help build it.
Wir sollten das mit aufbauen.   ->   Mit *was *aufbauen?? (bzw. womit)


----------



## berndf

manfy said:


> Wir sollten das mit aufbauen. ->  Mit *was *aufbauen?? (bzw. womit)


"Mit was". Du versuchst _mit_ wieder als Präposition und nicht als Adverb zu interpretieren. Das Adverb bedeutet _zusammen mit anderen/anderem; als Teil eines Größeren _und modifiziert direkt die Satzaussage (das Prädikat).


----------



## manfy

berndf said:


> "Mit was". Du versuchst _mit_ wieder als Präposition und nicht als Adverb zu interpretieren. Das Adverb bedeutet _zusammen mit anderen/anderem; als Teil eines Größeren _und modifiziert direkt die Satzaussage (das Prädikat).


If I put in lots of mental effort I seem to sense some discernible difference in phrases like _mit am Erfolg bauen_ vs _am Erfolg mitbauen_. But the difference between _mitaufbauen _and _mit aufbauen_ seems so negligible that it's hardly worth the while to start thinking about the grammar behind it...

Maybe I've been away for too long.


----------



## berndf

manfy said:


> But the difference between _mitaufbauen _and _mit aufbauen_ seems so negligible that it's hardly worth the while to start thinking about the grammar behind it...


The difference is small. The only difference is that in one version the adverb is clitic and in the other it is not. In spoken language there is a difference in stress.

As I said before:


berndf said:


> a verbal prefix is nothing else than a clitic adverb.


----------



## διαφορετικός

διαφορετικός said:


> I think "mitaufbauen" and "mitsitzen" are not German words, they do not exist.


Maybe I exaggerated a bit here.

But maybe it has to do with the following remark:


manfy said:


> Had it been written before 2006, 'mit' would have been a verb-prefix similar to: *mit*helfen, *mit*arbeiten, *mit*lachen, *mit*fahren, etc.


What relevant rule was introduced in 2006?

By the way, isn't it possible to pronounce "mit aufbauen" the same way as "mitaufbauen"? (Concerning stress and pause.)


----------



## manfy

διαφορετικός said:


> What relevant rule was introduced in 2006?


Hmm, good question. As you probably know, as native speakers we don't really learn those rules. The only rule of thumb I remember from my schooldays is:
pre-1996: If you're in doubt whether an expression is written as one word or as two, compound it. There's a 70% chance that the compounded form is grammatically correct.
post 1996-2006 (that's what my nieces told me): If you run into the same problem, write the expression as separate words. It'll probably yield better grades.

The pre-1996 rule worked well for me. I had near perfect grades.  My scholastic career ended before 1996, so I didn't really bother about the orthography reform(s) too much.



διαφορετικός said:


> By the way, isn't it possible to pronounce "mit aufbauen" the same way as "mitaufbauen"? (Concerning stress and pause.)


Yes, I probably would. But I have to admit that "mitaufbauen" kind of urges me to put the stress on 'mit' and in "mit aufbauen", I'm inclined to put the stress on "auf".


----------



## berndf

manfy said:


> Hmm, good question. As you probably know, as native speakers we don't really learn those rules. The only rule of thumb I remember from my schooldays is:
> pre-1996: If you're in doubt whether an expression is written as one word or as two, compound it. There's a 70% chance that the compounded form is grammatically correct.
> post 1996-2006 (that's what my nieces told me): If you run into the same problem, write the expression as separate words. It'll probably yield better grades.
> 
> The pre-1996 rule worked well for me. I had near perfect grades.  My scholastic career ended before 1996, so I didn't really bother about the orthography reform(s) too much.
> 
> 
> Yes, I probably would. But I have to admit that "mitaufbauen" kind of urges me to put the stress on 'mit' and in "mit aufbauen", I'm inclined to put the stress on "auf".


I find it generally problematic to use spelling rules in grammar arguments. Spelling rules after all are just arbitrary conventions to try to represent the structure of words and sentences as accurately as possible but they remain exactly that: arbitrary conventions.

It makes sense to me to use grammar arguments in discussions for defining spelling rules but not the other way round.


----------



## διαφορετικός

I wanted to know why I thought that "mitaufbauen" does not exist (but "mit aufbauen" does, of course!). The tendency to avoid compound words since 2006 might have caused that thought of mine. Frequent compound verbs like "mithelfen" will still be allowed, and the ones with special meanings like "mitmischen" as well. "Mitaufbauen" does not belong to these categories.


----------



## bearded

διαφορετικός said:


> "mitaufbauen" does not exist


If it existed, how should it be 'separated'?  etwa _Was baust du mitauf _?...


----------



## manfy

bearded said:


> If it existed, how should it be 'separated'?  etwa _Was baust du mitauf _?...


That's easy! We just use a cheap trick: Was willst du mitaufbauen? 

_(Grammar doesn't force us to express an idea in one way and one way only!)_


----------



## bearded

manfy said:


> We just use a cheap trick: Was willst du mitaufbauen?


----------



## berndf

bearded said:


> If it existed, how should it be 'separated'?  etwa _Was baust du mitauf _?...


If it existed I would write:
_Ich habe es mitaufgebaut.
Ich baute es mit auf._
But I doubt there are any separable double prefix verbs, so there won't be a paradigm; at least I can't come up with any example. There are a few non-separable double prefix verbs like _beanstanden_.

PS: Correction: There are a few, like _hervorheben_. Here, _hervor_ acts as a single adverb and _hervorheben_ is, hence, separated as you suggested, i.e.: _Ich hob es hervor_. But I doubt a hypothetical verb_ mitaufbauen_ would fall under the same category.


----------



## Kajjo

berndf said:


> _Ich habe es mitaufgebaut.
> Ich baute es mit auf._
> But I doubt there are any separable double prefix verbs


That is an excellent argument!


----------



## manfy

In der Sprache gibt es nichts, was es nicht gibt.

I found a good answer on stackexchange with some more examples and I fully agree with that answer.
Particularly also because it debunks the idea that this word does not exist - *it does*!
It is well formed and semantically sound -- and it is still in use and shows up in published literature in 2019: <Google Ngram>

Ultimately, I think I go with Churchill on this:
This is the kind of arrant pedantry, up with which I will not put.
Or in German: ..., bei der ich nicht _mit mache_ und die ich nicht _mit ver antworte_.


----------



## anahiseri

I don't have time to read all the posts, so please excuse me if I'm repeating what somebody said. I'm not very familiar with the post-2006 - spelling rules, but I'm persuaded that 
*Er möchte die Demokratie mit aufbauen*.
is correct, idiomatic and easy to understand  - He wants to *take part  / contribute  / participate *in building a democracy.
Without the word "*mit",
Er möchte die Demokratie     aufbauen. *Sounds strange.  It means   "He wants to build a democracy" (alone, by himself!) That's not something a reasonable  politician would say.


----------



## anahiseri

I don't think it's very important, but anyway:
Here, *mit* is an adverb (not a preposition), and it looks nicer if it's spelt separately. It's difficult to  translate the word. It's certainly not _*with*,_ because *with *is a preposition. It's nearer to  _*together / in company.*_


----------



## manfy

anahiseri said:


> ... and it looks nicer if it's spelt separately. [...]


 I like that explanation.

But I couldn't give it a rest since several people suggested that my preferred form "mitaufbauen" is not an acceptable word.
Siehe da - Duden did in fact come up with an explanation:


> Als (getrennt geschriebenes) Adverb drückt „mit“ die vorübergehende Beteiligung oder *den Gedanken* des Anschlusses aus (so viel wie „auch“), z. B.:
> 
> mit nach oben gehen
> Mit dem Verb zusammengeschrieben wird „mit“, wenn es eine dauernde Vereinigung oder Teilnahme ausdrückt:
> 
> _vgl._ mitarbeiten, mitbringen, mitfahren, mitreißen, mitteilen usw.
> *Im Zweifelsfall sind beide Schreibweisen zulässi*g:


"An den Haaren herbeigezogen" comes to mind but at least they found the time to find something.

And it proves that "mitaufbauen" exists.
QED


----------



## berndf

manfy said:


> And it proves that "mitaufbauen" exists.


It surely does not. It only means that (separable) verbs with prefix _mit-_ exist at all. This is not a productive rule, i.e. it does not not mean that you can stick _mit- _in fronts of whatever verb you like and derive a new verb. All of the verbs given as examples are lexically distinct verbs with their own lemata in the dictionary.

mitarbeiten
mitbringen
mitfahren
mitreißen
mitteilen

But no
https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/mitaufbauen (Fehler 404 – Seite nicht gefunden)


----------



## elroy

For me the nuance would be:

mit aufbauen: join others in performing / work with others to perform the action of “aufbauen” 

mitaufbauen: perform the action of participating in the process of “aufbauen”

A perhaps comparable case: I’m never sure if I should write “mit einbeziehen” or “miteinbeziehen.”


----------



## manfy

berndf said:


> But no
> https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/mitaufbauen (Fehler 404 – Seite nicht gefunden)


I don't see that as a binding proof.
Duden also doesn't list 'mitverantworten' even though this is still the preferred form. In _Zweifelsfälle _(which I didn't add to not exceed the quote limit) in my link above, they also showed double prefix verbs like "mitansehen, miteinrechnen,...".


----------



## berndf

manfy said:


> I don't see that as a binding proof.


Of course not. It was an illustration. The point is that your "QED" is wrong. _Mitaufbauen _is not a "Zweifelsfall". Your quote does not imply it must exist. And, even if Duden is missing a lemma here, other dictionaries have it (DWDS – Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache). Plus _verantworten_ is a non-separable verb. I would still be very surprised if you could find a separable verb with a _mit-_ as an additional and independent prefix.


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> A perhaps comparable case: I’m never sure if I should write “mit einbeziehen” or “miteinbeziehen.”


There is an audible difference that corresponds the these spellings. Try to say it out loud and watch what your intuition tells you. I am very confident you will come to the right conclusion.


----------



## Borteg

manfy said:


> I agree with bearded concerning semantics.
> But this sentence below just looks
> 
> Is this post 2006 spelling?
> 
> Had it been written before 2006, 'mit' would have been a verb-prefix similar to: *mit*helfen, *mit*arbeiten, *mit*lachen, *mit*fahren, etc. etc.
> The meaning is still the same as bearded showed above: "mit" adds ''together with others'' to the core meaning of the verb.


I think, the book had been written after 2006.  Menschen B1.2


----------



## anahiseri

elroy said:


> For me the nuance would be:
> 
> mit aufbauen: join others in performing / work with others to perform the action of “aufbauen”
> 
> mitaufbauen: perform the action of participating in the process of “aufbauen”


For me the nuance is so subtle that I can't see it.


----------



## Schlabberlatz

Demiurg said:


> Er möchte mit ins Kino gehen. (adverb + verb _gehen_)
> Er möchte ins Kino mitgehen. (verb _mitgehen_)


I fail to see a real difference there. The underlying verb in the first sentence is still "mitgehen". You can see that when you leave out "ins Kino" in that sentence. What you get is "Er möchte mitgehen", not "Er möchte mit gehen" … cf.:


berndf said:


> There is an audible difference that corresponds the these spellings. Try to say it out loud and watch what your intuition tells you. I am very confident you will come to the right conclusion.


 
mit aufbauen 
 mitaufbauen  



bearded said:


> If it existed, how should it be 'separated'?  etwa _Was baust du mitauf _?...


 

Right, converting a sentence into a question is useful if you want to demonstrate something, see here:


Schlabberlatz said:


> *Warum kommst du heute Abend nicht mit in die Disko?*
> … kann man so umformen:
> *Warum kommst du heute Abend nicht mit, und zwar in die Disko?*
> … aber nicht so:
> Warum kommst du heute Abend nicht, und zwar mit in die Disko?
> 
> Auch hier sieht man wieder: Das ›mit‹ gehört zu ›kommen‹.


Let’s do the same with the examples above:
Warum gehst du nicht mit, wir wollen ins Kino 
Warum gehst du nicht, wir wollen mit ins Kino 



manfy said:


> Good example!! An even better one that shows that it is not interchangable semantically:
> Er möchte mit am Tisch sitzen.
> Er möchte am Tisch mitsitzen.  (semantic nonsense because "mitsitzen" does not exist.


Er möchte am Tisch sitzen, und zwar mit uns  (underlying verb: "sitzen")
Er möchte am Tisch mitsitzen 
Er möchte die Demokratie aufbauen, und zwar mit uns  (underlying verb: "aufbauen")
Er möchte die Demokratie mitaufbauen


----------

