# Sie liebt ihren Hund. (word order)



## fedeciow

Hello everyone,

I have started learning german not too long ago, and I have found myself struggling with the structure of the sentence. To translate "she loves her dog", my initial guess would have been  "Sie leibt ihren Hund" but google translate thinks otherwise! I did some research and found that sentences that start with Dass have the verb at the end of the sentence "I often say that my house is too small","Ich oft sage, dass mein haus zu klein ist" (is that right? I don't know!). Anyways, if anyone could shed some light on this problem, or address me to a website that could help me understand better, it would be great. 

Thanks,

F.


----------



## fedeciow

Sage oft* I believe is more correct


----------



## Frank78

The words in a German sentence revolve around the finite verb which is always in second position. The rest can be arranged freely but most of the times it's subject-verb-object as in English.

"Sie* liebt* ihren Hund."
"Ihren Hund* liebt* sie." (emphasis on "ihren Hund")

"Ich sage *oft*, dass mein Haus zu klein ist." - adverbs of frequency (immer, nie, oft,gewöhnlich) come AFTER the verb or at the beginning of a sentence (but "immer" or "nie" rarely take front position) in German.

*Oft* sage ich, dass...


----------



## fedeciow

When does the verb go at the end then, other than in a sentence that starts with "dass"?


----------



## Hutschi

The second position rule applies to main clauses, not to subordinate clauses, and not in many questions.

In a subordinate clause the finite verb comes to the end, as in Frank's example. 
"Ich sage oft, dass mein Haus zu klein ist." 

"Ich *sage *oft, dass mein Haus zu klein ist."  main clause: second position of phrases
"Ich sage oft, dass mein Haus zu klein *ist*."  subordinate clause: end position

So following works:


"Dass mein Haus zu klein ist, *sage* ich oft." (second position of "sage", the whole subordinate clause counts as one phrase.)
"Dass mein Haus zu klein *ist*, sage ich oft." (last position of "ist" in the subordinate clause)


The second position rule for a finite verb of a main clause is very strict. 

The last position rule for a finite verb in a subordinate clause has many exceptions.

Example for a subordinate clause without "dass":

Ich nehme dich morgen mit, wenn du das *möchtest*.


----------



## bearded

fedeciow said:


> When does the verb go at the end then, other than in a sentence that starts with "dass"?


As Hutschi suggested, the verb must be at the end of the sentence in most subordinate clauses, i.e. in clauses introduced by a subordinative conjunction such as _als, wenn, wie, warum, dass, etc.   _or by a relative or interrogative pronoun.
In Italian: il verbo va posto alla fine nella maggior parte delle proposizioni secondarie introdotte da una congiunzione subordinante, oppure da un pronome relativo o interrogativo.


----------



## Hutschi

The finite Verb in a subordinate clause is usually not at the end anymore, when the subordinate clause has an own subordinate clause. This is to avoid bracketing (Schachtelsätze)

Example:

1) "Ich sage oft, *dass mein Haus*, das ich vor zwei Jahren, als ich gerade genug Geld hatte, gekauft habe,  *zu klein ist*."

2) "Ich sage oft, *dass mein Haus zu klein ist*, das ich vor zwei Jahren gekauft habe, als ich gerade genug Geld hatte."

In 2) the subordinate clauses come outside the verb bracket, and this style is preferred today. So the finite verb is not at the end of the subordinate clause, but its own subordinate parts are outside of the verb bracket.

The form in 1) were frequently used at the end of the 19th century. Mark Twain wrote about this in his essay "The awful German language".


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Hutschi said:


> Ich sage oft, *dass mein Haus zu klein ist*, das ich vor zwei Jahren gekauft habe, als ich gerade genug Geld hatte.


is not exactly an example of finite verbs not being in the final position.


----------



## Hutschi

Schimmelreiter said:


> is not exactly an example of finite verbs not being in the final position.


Why not? I do not understand this. What is the definition of "at the end"? 


---


In case it is not a subordinate clause in a subordinate clause, but a rather simple construction, there is, for example:


"Ich sage oft, dass mein rotes Haus zu klein *ist*." 
"Ich sage oft, dass mein Haus, das rote, zu klein *ist*." 
"Ich sage oft, dass mein Haus zu klein *ist*, das rote." ("Das rote" is an apposition here.)

...

Another example are infinitive verbs, they can follow the finite verb.

Das ist das Haus, von dem ich mir *habe* berichten lassen.
Das ist das Haus, von dem ich mir berichten  lassen *habe*. (finite verb "habe")


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Schimmelreiter said:


> Hutschi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ich sage oft, *dass mein Haus zu klein ist*, das ich vor zwei Jahren gekauft habe, als ich gerade genug Geld hatte.
> 
> 
> 
> is not exactly an example of finite verbs not being in the final position.
Click to expand...




Hutschi said:


> Why not?






In each of the three subordinate clauses that appear in 





Hutschi said:


> Ich sage oft, *dass mein Haus zu klein ist*, das ich vor zwei Jahren gekauft habe, als ich gerade genug Geld hatte.


the respective finite verb is in the final position.


----------



## berndf

Hutschi said:


> Why not? I do not understand this. What is the definition of "at the end"?


At the end of the clause the verb belongs to, i.e. _dass mein Haus zu klein ist_.


----------



## Gernot Back

Schimmelreiter said:


> Hutschi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ich sage oft, *dass mein Haus zu klein ist*, das ich vor zwei Jahren gekauft habe, als ich gerade genug Geld hatte.
> 
> 
> 
> is not exactly an example of finite verbs not being in the final position.
Click to expand...

Yes it is!
The subordinate clauses of second and third degree are exbraciated into the post-field of the subordinate clauses of first and second degree respectively, here!
http://www.canoo.net/services/Onlin...lungsfeld/index.html?lang=en#Anchor-Die-47857
If the finite verbs were in final position of their respective clause the sentence as a whole would read as follows:

_Ich sage oft, dass mein Haus, das ich vor zwei Jahren, als ich gerade genug Geld hatte, gekauft habe, zu klein ist._​


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> Yes it is!
> The subordinate clauses of second and third degree are exbraciated into the post-field of the subordinate clauses of first and second degree respectively, here!
> http://www.canoo.net/services/Onlin...lungsfeld/index.html?lang=en#Anchor-Die-47857
> If the finite verbs were in final position of their respective clause the sentence as a whole would read as follows:
> _Ich sage oft, dass mein Haus, das ich vor zwei Jahren, als ich gerade genug Geld hatte, gekauft habe, zu klein ist._​


You are right.


----------



## bearded

Gernot Back said:


> If the finite verbs were in final position of their respective clause the sentence as a whole would read as follows:
> 
> _Ich sage oft, dass mein Haus, das ich vor zwei Jahren, als ich gerade genug Geld hatte, gekauft habe, zu klein ist._​


You are of course the expert in your own language, but it seems to me that - if the verbs were in final position of their respective clauses - the sentence should read:
'''Ich sage oft, dass mein Haus, das ich vor 2 Jahren gekauft habe, als ich gerade genug Geld hatte, zu klein ist'''.
But if you judge that I am mistaken and your sentence is more correct, please let me know why.  Thank you.


----------



## berndf

No, BM, Gernot is right. It is a 3-deep nested sub-clause structure:

0 Ich sage oft,
1 ...dass mein Haus,
2 ......das ich vor zwei Jahren,
3 .........als ich gerade genug Geld hatte,
2 ......gekauft habe,
1 ...zu klein ist.

The numbers are the sub-clause recursion level, starting 1 for the top-level sub-clause.

_Als _is a sub-ordinating and not a co-ordination conjunctions as you can see from the following example:
_Er sah mich im Auto sitzen _[main clause order]_, als er um die Ecke bog_ [sub clause order].
If it were co-ordinating, that both should have main clause order.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Hutschi said:


> Das ist das Haus, von dem ich mir *habe* berichten lassen.


That's indeed a notable exception to the general rule: The finite form of _haben _precedes _infinitive + substitute infinitive _(substituted for the past participle). What I can't relate to, though, is why





Hutschi said:


> Ich sage oft, dass mein Haus zu klein *ist*, das rote.


would be an exception. The subordinate clause ends with _ist. _It's followed by a main clause that commonly begins with _d.h./i.e. _but is incomplete here.



It should be noted that infinitives with _zu _are often placed outside of the subordinate clause proper, especially when accompanied by further constituents:
_
Er sagte, dass er (im Slalom) zu gewinnen gehofft habe. > Er sagte, dass er gehofft habe (, im Slalom) zu gewinnen._



By inference from what's been said it's clear anyway that unintroduced subordinate clauses follow main-clause word order:

_Er sagte, er habe __(im Slalom) zu gewinnen gehofft/er habe gehofft __(, im Slalom) zu gewinnen.








_


berndf said:


> Gernot Back said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is!
> The subordinate clauses of second and third degree are exbraciated into the post-field of the subordinate clauses of first and second degree respectively, here!
> http://www.canoo.net/services/Onlin...lungsfeld/index.html?lang=en#Anchor-Die-47857
> If the finite verbs were in final position of their respective clause the sentence as a whole would read as follows:
> _Ich sage oft, dass mein Haus, das ich vor zwei Jahren, als ich gerade genug Geld hatte, gekauft habe, zu klein ist._​
> 
> 
> 
> You are right.
Click to expand...

I'm unaware of any rule that says that a relative pronoun or conjunction must immediately follow its referent. Only if such a rule existed would declaring its breach admissible constitute an exception to it.


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> I'm unaware of any rule that says that a relative pronoun or conjunction must immediately follow its referent. Only if such a rule existed would declaring its breach admissible constitute an exception to it.


That's not the point. ..._dass mein Haus zu klein ist_ is a sub-clause with an embedded sub-sub-clause which in turn has an imbedded sub-sub-sub-clause. Hence, the complete first level-sub-clause is:
_...dass mein Haus zu klein ist, das ich vor zwei Jahren gekauft habe, als ich gerade genug Geld hatte._
and the finite verb (_ist_) is not at the end of the clause. That is a simple fact, nothing to do with _right _or _wrong_. Gernot is right, we were wrong. It would be different the 2nd and 3rd subclauses were co-cordinated to the 1st but they aren't; they are sub-ordinated and are therefore part of the 1st sub-clause.


----------



## Hutschi

This is, what I wrote. Such "Schachtelsätze" are avoided now. The sub-sub-clauses ore moved behind.

German allows in principle to include more and more sub clauses, but it is not done anymore.

At the end of the nineteenth century a sentence could be more than one page in length, including several levels of sub clauses and connected clases.

In English it Hemingway (or Hemingway was one of the initiators) to simplify the sentences.

Now you will have seldom long sentences in English or German, but German sentences tend to be longer until nowadays.


1) "Ich sage oft, dass mein Haus, das ich vor zwei Jahren, als ich gerade genug Geld hatte, gekauft habe, zu klein *ist*." (Finite verb at the end)


2) "Ich sage oft, dass mein Haus zu klein *ist*, das ich vor zwei Jahren gekauft habe, als ich gerade genug Geld hatte." (finite verb not at the end, nevertheless easier to read nowadays.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

berndf said:


> That's not the point. ..._dass mein Haus zu klein ist_ is a sub-clause with an embedded sub-sub-clause which in turn has an imbedded sub-sub-sub-clause. Hence, the complete first level-sub-clause is:
> _...dass mein Haus zu klein ist, das ich vor zwei Jahren gekauft habe, als ich gerade genug Geld hatte._
> and the finite verb (_ist_) is not at the end of the clause. That is a simple fact, nothing to do with _right _or _wrong_. Gernot is right, we were wrong. It would be different the 2nd and 3rd subclauses were co-cordinated to the 1st but they aren't; they are sub-ordinated and are therefore part of the 1st sub-clause.


Given that

_Es ist klar, dass der gewonnen hat, der besser motiviert war.

_is a noteworthy exbraciation since with the second-degree sub-clause unexbraciated, it reads,

_Es ist klar, dass der, der besser motiviert war, gewonnen hat.

_that makes
_
Es  ist klar, dass er gewonnen hat, weil er besser motiviert war._

a noteworthy exbraciation, too, since with the second-degree sub-clause unexbraciated, it reads,
_
Es ist klar, dass er, weil er besser motiviert war, gewonnen hat.
_







What added value flows from viewing 

_Es ist klar, dass er gewonnen hat, weil er besser motiviert war.

_as an instance of _exbraciation_ when it's the most common thing in the world rather than being anywhere near an exception?










So sorry, Bernd. I've only just now realised you'd replied to the deleted version of my post.


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> What added value flows from viewing
> 
> _Es ist klar, dass er gewonnen hat, weil er besser motiviert war.
> 
> _as an instance of _exbraciation_ when it's the most common thing in the world rather than being anywhere near an exception?


Well, because it is one, pure and simple. If you rejected this analysis you would effectively give up the basic idea that a sub-clause is _Satzglied _of the containing clause. That would certainly send greater shock-waves through the fabric of grammar theory than modifying the rule "in sub-clause verb order the finite verb comes last" (which has other exceptions anyway: _Er sah ein, dass sein Feund den Hasen *hatte *laufen lassen müssen_) to accommodate for sub-sub-clause in the Nachfeld.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

berndf said:


> Schimmelreiter said:
> 
> 
> 
> What added value flows from viewing
> 
> _Es ist klar, dass er gewonnen hat, weil er besser motiviert war.
> 
> _as an instance of _exbraciation_ when it's the most common thing in the world rather than being anywhere near an exception?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, because it is one, pure and simple. If you rejected this analysis you would effectively give up the basic idea that a sub-clause is _Satzglied _of the containing clause. That would certainly send greater shock-waves through the fabric of grammar theory than modifying the rule "in sub-clause verb order the finite verb comes last" (which has other exceptions anyway: _Er sah ein, dass sein Feund den Hasen *hatte *laufen lassen müssen_) to accommodate for sub-sub-clause in the Nachfeld.
Click to expand...

There wouldn't be any shock-waves since I don't in the least think of





berndf said:


> modifying the rule "in sub-clause verb order the finite verb comes last"


What you and Gernot do is apply the fields theory to the sub-clause, speak of a sub-clause's post-field, exbraciation into the same, a.s.o. 

To the humble extent I know grammar, the fields theory wasn't made for this. A sub-clause doesn't have a post-field, neither can anything be exbraciated thereinto. Whole sentences are the subject of that theory.


Let's apply the fields theory to

_Es ist klar, dass er gewonnen hat, weil er besser motiviert war.

_pre-field: _Es
_middle field: _ist klar
_post-field: _dass er gewonnen hat, weil er besser motiviert war_


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> pre-field: _Es
> _middle field: _ist klar
> _post-field: _dass er gewonnen hat, weil er besser motiviert war_


Looks fine to me. Where is the problem?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

berndf said:


> Gernot Back said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is!
> The subordinate clauses of second and third degree are *exbraciated into the post-field of the subordinate clauses* of first and second degree respectively, here!
> http://www.canoo.net/services/Onlin...lungsfeld/index.html?lang=en#Anchor-Die-47857
> If the finite verbs were in final position of their respective clause the sentence as a whole would read as follows:_Ich sage oft, dass mein Haus, das ich vor zwei Jahren, als ich gerade genug Geld hatte, gekauft habe, zu klein ist._​
> 
> 
> 
> *You are right.*
Click to expand...

*The problem is* that contrary to what you and Gernot are saying,





Schimmelreiter said:


> *A sub-clause doesn't have a post-field, neither can anything be exbraciated thereinto.*


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> A sub-clause doesn't have a post-field


Such a claim would completely arbitrary and there would be lo logic to it.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

In the whole of canoo, the fields theory is only applied to whole sentences. A sub-clause doesn't have a post-field but is itself in a sentence's pre-field, middle field or post-field. Do you have any sources for your claim?

I must admit, my knowledge is largely based on canoo.


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> In the whole of canoo, the fields theory is only applied to whole sentences.


You obviously haven't read Gernot's quote which *is* from canoo.


Schimmelreiter said:


> A sub-clause doesn't have a post-field but is itself in a sentence's pre-field, middle field or post-field.



We have given you tons of examples of recursive sentences. The main-sub-clause relationship is one of recursion level. A main clause is a sub-clause of recursion level 0:


berndf said:


> 0 Ich sage oft,
> 1 ...dass mein Haus,
> 2 ......das ich vor zwei Jahren,
> 3 .........als ich gerade genug Geld hatte,
> 2 ......gekauft habe,
> 1 ...zu klein ist.



If you place the recursive clauses in the Nachfeld, nothing changes semantically, and hence nothing changes in the nesting structure:
0 Ich sage oft,
1 ...dass mein Haus zu klein ist,
2 ......das ich vor zwei Jahren gekauft habe,
3 .........als ich gerade genug Geld hatte.

Or written linearly: _{Ich sage oft, {dass mein Haus zu klein ist, {das ich vor zwei Jahren gekauft habe, {als ich gerade genug Geld hatte}}}}._


----------



## Schimmelreiter

You're right.



-----------------------Mittelfeld----------------------------------------Nachfeld---------
_dass der Großvater seinem Enkel ein Buch geschenkt  hat, das der Kleine sofort las._
http://www.canoo.net/services/Onlin...lungsfeld/index.html?lang=en#Anchor-Die-47857


Apologies for my lack of attention.


----------

