# du antwortest höchstens auf seine Fragen



## marcogaiotto

In Monschau unterhältst du(Lena) dich nie mit ihm (Lena's grandfather), du antwortest _höchstens _auf seine Fragen.

Hello! I can't understand the meaning of _höchstens._
It is a passage from a text. Lena's mother tells her she never has a chat with her grandfather when she visits him in Monschau.
Does it mean that Lena gives answers, but doesn't speak for a long time with her grandfather? Thanks a lot in advance!


----------



## Frank78

marcogaiotto said:


> In Monschau unterhältst du(Lena) dich nie mit *ihn* (Lena's grandfather), du antwortest _höchstens _auf seine Frage.
> 
> Hello! I can't understand the meaning of _höchstens._



"*at best* you answer his questions" - So Lena doesn't really talk to him but only replies to his questions as you correctly supposed.

P.S. "Is "ihn" a typo? It has to be "ihm" (dative).


----------



## marcogaiotto

Frank78 said:


> "*at best* you answer his questions" - So Lena doesn't really talk to him but only replies to his questions as you correctly supposed.
> 
> P.S. "Is "ihn" a typo? It has to be "ihm" (dative).


That's a typo! Sorry!


----------



## Kajjo

marcogaiotto said:


> du antwortest _höchstens _auf seine Frage.


Singular does not sound idiomatic, but is formally correct. Typically we would say:

_du antwortest höchstens auf seine Fragen._

I believe the same is true in English. Isn't it in Italian?


----------



## marcogaiotto

Kajjo said:


> Singular does not sound idiomatic, but is formally correct. Typically we would say:
> 
> _du antwortest höchstens auf seine Fragen._
> 
> I believe the same is true in English. Isn't it in Italian?


You're right! I meant "Fragen". Yes, it is the same as in Italian.


----------



## Hans in Texas

At most, you answer... or: Limit your conversation to answering his questions.


----------



## JClaudeK

marcogaiotto said:


> It is a passage from a text.


Kannst Du uns verraten, um welchen "Text" es sich handelt?


----------



## elroy

Frank78 said:


> "*at best* you answer his questions"





Hans in Texas said:


> At most, you answer...


Yes, “at most,” not “at best.”  Like in German. 

But I would probably reword:

_If he asks any questions, you can answer them, but that’s it. _


----------



## JClaudeK

elroy said:


> But I would probably reword:
> 
> _If he asks any questions, you can answer them, but that’s it. _


"can answer", not "(do) answer"?

I don't understand why you use "can" = kannst (?)


----------



## elroy

you can answer = du darfst antworten 

The original isn’t saying she *has* to answer, is it?

If it is, then there are a few options:
… you answer [stern]
… do answer [emphatic] 
… answer [neutral]
… go ahead and answer [gentle]


----------



## JClaudeK

elroy said:


> The original isn’t saying she *has* to answer, is it?


No, but it's saying that  - usually - she anwers her gandfather's questions (but nerver starts a conversation).


----------



## elroy

Oh!  I understood the original to be present tense with an imperative meaning.

As in:

- Wie komme ich zum Bahnhof?
- Du gehst die Frankfurter Straße lang bis zur Ampel, dann biegst du rechts ab…

Without context, both readings are possible, right?


----------



## JClaudeK

elroy said:


> I understand the original to be present tense with an imperative meaning.


I don't think so.

Es ist einfach eine - vorwurfsvolle - Feststellung: _so spielt es sich im Allgemeinen ab. _


----------



## elroy

We don’t have context, so both readings are possible.  We can’t be sure without context.


----------



## JClaudeK

elroy said:


> We can’t be sure without context.


Hier (in einem von _marcogaiottos_  Posts) haben wir ein bisschen mehr Kontext:


marcogaiotto said:


> "Ich (= Endrick, Lena's grandfather) denke, das sie daran nicht interressiert ist...und wozu auch? Ich bin kein Engel mehr. Das gehört zur Vergangenheit."
> [...]
> Lena has discovered that his grandfather sent to her a friendship request on FriendBook using the name of "Engel"; she thinks he aimed to spy on her habits, while he just meant to try to get in touch with her and have a deeper relation.


Daraus geht hervor, dass Lenas Beziehungen zu ihrem Großvater eher konfliktreich sind.

Dazu passt nur die Interpretation in #13:
Siehe oben: _ "Lena's mother tells her she never has a chat with her grandfather when she visits him in Monschau."_


----------



## anahiseri

JClaudeK said:


> I don't think so.
> 
> Es ist einfach eine - vorwurfsvolle - Feststellung: _so spielt es sich im Allgemeinen ab. _


I agree. Lena's mother would like her daughter to have proper conversations with her grandfather instead of just answering a question from time to time.
No imperative, however; Lena's mother just says the way things are.


----------



## Frank78

elroy said:


> We don’t have context, so both readings are possible.  We can’t be sure without context.



I don't think so. The "nie" and "du" rule the imperative out. If it were an imperative it would rather be "nicht" (nie is possible though but it sounds strange), e.g. "Unterhalte dich _nie/ja nicht/besser nicht_ mit deinem Großvater"


----------



## elroy

I thought it was about multiple/repeated future encounters.


----------



## Frank78

elroy said:


> I thought it was about multiple/repeated future encounters.



Another example:

"Wenn du nach New York reist, besuchst du nie die Bronx" - That can be in no case be a warning/an imperative to go there but is always a reproach.


----------



## elroy

So “nie” can never be used in an imperative?


----------



## Sowka

elroy said:


> So “nie” can never be used in an imperative?


Not in the imperative expressed by present tense. You would need something like "gefälligst":

... besuchst du gefälligst nie die Bronx!

It would be OK with the imperative form:

... besuche (bloß) nie die Bronx!


----------



## Frank78

Sowka said:


> ... besuche (bloß) nie die Bronx!



Without a flavouring particle "ja/bloß" or "gefälligst" it is rare.

But there's still the "du" in the OP's sentence which kills the imperative.


----------



## elroy

Frank78 said:


> But there's still the "du" in the OP's sentence which kills the imperative.


What?  The whole point is whether it can be a present tense used in an imperative meaning.


----------



## Frank78

elroy said:


> What?  The whole point is whether it can be a present tense used in an imperative meaning.



 What? You certainly mean INDICATIVE with imperative meaning!?


----------



## elroy

It’s both.  It’s present tense, and it’s indicative.  What are you shocked about?  The present tense can refer to the present, the past, or the future, and it can have an imperative meaning.  It’s the difference between form and function.

Form: Present tense, indicative mood
Function: Depends on the sentence

Present meaning: Ich fahre gerade nach Hause 
Past meaning: 1860 fährt der König nach Wien, um sich mit dem Kaiser zu treffen. 
Future meaning: Morgen fahre ich nach Kiel.
Imperative meaning: Wenn es regnet, fährst du schön langsam, verstehst du? 

Back to “nie,” how about this example?

An employee is about to conduct a series of job interviews over the course of four weeks.  His supervisory gives him some advice/instructions:

So machst du das: du ziehst dich immer professionell an, kommst immer frühzeitig an und stellst nie zu persönliche Fragen.

Does this really not work?  It would work in English.


----------



## Frank78

elroy said:


> It’s both.  It’s present tense, and it’s indicative.  What are you shocked about?



You confuse people, comparing tense and mood.

Present tense is not the opposite of the imperative. It's like the famous apple and oranges.



elroy said:


> So machst du das: du ziehst dich immer professionell an, kommst immer frühzeitig an und stellst nie zu persönliche Fragen.
> 
> Does this really not work?  It would work in English.



It does work but here you have a clear lead-up that shows that instructions follow. If you drop "so machst du das" it sounds like a compliment.


----------



## elroy

I never said anything about the imperative _mood_.  I talked about the present tense (in the indicative mood) being used in an imperative _meaning_.  This is clear if you go back and read my posts carefully.  I also never said, or implied, that the imperative was the "opposite" of the present.  I don't know where you got that from. 

I said that I had understood the original to have an imperative _meaning_.  Which is not the same thing as the imperative _mood_.



Frank78 said:


> It does work but here you have a clear lead-up that shows that instructions follow.


Yes, I included that to make the context clear.  In real life, there's always a context, so we would know how to interpret the sentence.  The original is just an isolated sentence without context.  How do we know that what came before wasn't "So machst du das"?


----------



## Frank78

elroy said:


> I never said anything about the imperative _mood_.



That's the very point! You didn't mention any mood at all. And it's all about mood and you come up with tenses. 



elroy said:


> I talked about the present tense (in the indicative mood) being used in an imperative _meaning_.  This is clear if you go back and read my posts carefully.  I also never said, or implied, that the imperative was the "opposite" of the present.  I don't know where you got that from.
> 
> I said that I had understood the original to have an imperative _meaning_.  Which is not the same thing as the imperative _mood._



"The present tense being used in an imperative _meaning_." is a nonsense statement when you don't explicitly write "present tense indicative".

"Geh nach Hause" is also _present tense with an imperative meaning_, isn't it?


----------



## elroy

I could have said “present indicative,” but in linguistics and discussions of language when we say “present tense” by itself it’s understood that we mean indicative by default.


----------



## marcogaiotto

JClaudeK said:


> Kannst Du uns verraten, um welchen "Text" es sich handelt?


It's a school book! Summer homework!


----------



## Hutschi

Frank78 said:


> ".
> 
> "Geh nach Hause" is also _present tense with an imperative meaning_, isn't it?


Indeed it is.
But this is grammar.
It refers to future time. When I say the sentence the other one is not going yet.
Time and tense are different here.
Present tense is often used to describe future time.
In some cases it is used to describe past time. Most oftenit describes present time.

In the given imperative sentence the other did not start yet in the present time. If he or she started already, the imperative sentence does not make sense. He or she will start in the near future - in some minutes or some days or some months - or he or she will ignore it at all.


----------

