# Es ist zu heiß, um draußen zu sitzen (zu / um zu)



## Mozzerfan99

I am still a little confused about the differentiation of these two constructions.
So if I wanted to say 'it is too hot to sit outside', would that use 'um zu'?
Or if I wanted to say 'it is too hot to sleep', which would I use?
So which of these are correct?

Es ist zu heiß um draußen zu sitzen - oder - es ist zu heiß draußen zu sitzen?
Es ist zu heiß um zu schlafen - oder - es ist zu heiß zu schlafen?
Danke.


----------



## Nickle Sydney

I believe that both are correct but I'm a learner like you are 

I mean, you can say: 

Es ist zu heiß um draußen zu sitzen 
Es ist zu heiß draußen zu sitzen 
Es ist zu heiß um zu schlafen 
Es ist zu heiß zu schlafen 

Warten wir auf einen Muttersprachler!


----------



## berndf

Königskind said:


> Think of "um zu" as "in order to" in English. If you cannot say the  sentence in English with the phrase "in order to", then stick with "zu".
> ...
> It is too hot in order to sit outside.  (um zu)


As Boris said, _Es ist zu heiß, um draußen zu sitzen_ is perfectly correct. I am afraid your rule doesn't quite capture all aspects.


----------



## cuore romano

berndf said:


> As Boris said, _Es ist zu heiß, um draußen zu sitzen_ is perfectly correct. I am afraid your rule doesn't quite capture all aspects.


----------



## berndf

Königskind said:


> It's just in general. As always, there are exceptions. As a beginner it helps with the basics until you get more used to the natural flow of the language.


I disagree. The sentence in question is quite prototypical for the use of _um zu_ and not a strange exception. Whoever told you this rule didn't think far enough.


----------



## perny

It is an unusual construction for a learner though, compared to ordinary "um ... zu" since there is an implied change of subject. 

Are natives perfectly comfortable using this compared to say, "zu ..., als dass", e.g. even in writing? Or is this actually a shortcut for that implied by the "zu + adjective"?


----------



## poisongift

You definitely need "um...zu" to really capture the same meaning. 

"Es ist zu heiß, um draußen zu sitzen" = "It is so hot that one cannot/should not sit outside" --> The meaning that you are trying to convey

"Es ist zu heiß, draußen zu sitzen" = "Sitting outside is too hot" --> Wrong meaning. In this case, the initial "es" is not the same kind of abstract "it" as in the first sentence. Instead, it is a dummy pronoun which delays the subject.


----------



## Königskind

I didn't mean that "um zu" was an exception. I meant that the memory trick has its exceptions, just like most all of them have when it comes to German.


----------



## Königskind

http://www.belleslettres.eu/artikel/um-zu.php


----------



## poisongift

berndf said:


> I disagree. The sentence in question is quite prototypical for the use of _um zu_ and not a strange exception. However told you this rule didn't think far enough.



This particular usage of "um...zu" is hard for native English speakers, though, because we're taught that "um...zu" means "in order to," and we don't say "It it too hot in order to sit outside."

Only once an English speaker gets more comfortable with the language and starts to understand these constructions in terms of their contexts and meanings within the German language instead of in terms of their approximate English equivalents can he/she really intuitively grasp this usage of "um...zu".


----------



## berndf

Königskind said:


> http://www.belleslettres.eu/artikel/um-zu.php


Agreed. I have to amend my statement: _However told you this rule didn't think far enough or is a hopeless prescriptivist._
This rule doesn't have much to do with the _real_ language.


----------



## Gernot Back

In this case, we are *not *talking about the final conjunction_ um ... zu_, the equivalent of which is _in *order *to_ in English, but about the *consecutive *conjunction _um ... zu_ which only translates as _to _in English.

http://www.canoo.net/services/Onlin...sekutiv.html?lang=en#Anchor-Konjunktion-um-zu


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> In this case, we are *not *talking about the final conjunction_ um ... zu_, the equivalent of which is _in *order *to_ in English, but about the *consecutive *conjunction _um ... zu_ which only translates as _to _in English.


That has never been questioned.

Königskind ran across Daniel Scholten's blog _Belles Lettres_ where Scholten flatly denies that a non-final conjunction _um..zu_ exists. Unfortunately, Scholten notoriously conflates his personal opinion how the German standard language should be with facts how the German standard language is. So, while his blog is full of interesting ideas and arguments, it is not very suitable as a reference for foreign language students. In this respect, _Belles Lettres_ is a bit similar to Sick's _Zwiebelfisch_.


----------



## Mozzerfan99

So if you said 'es ist zu heiß draußen zu sitzen' you are effectively changing the meaning of 'es', showing that the 'es' is refering to 'draußen zu sitzen' itself?
So are these all correct?
Es ist zu spät um zu einschlafen.
Ich finde es gut, etwas warmes zu essen.
Ich versuche, etwas zu machen.
Ich gehe nach Hause, um zu einschlafen.
Thanks for replies.


----------



## poisongift

Mozzerfan99 said:


> So if you said 'es ist zu heiß draußen zu sitzen' you are effectively changing the meaning of 'es', showing that the 'es' is refering to 'draußen zu sitzen' itself?
> So are these all correct?
> Es ist zu spät um zu einschlafen.
> Ich finde es gut, etwas warmes zu essen.
> Ich versuche, etwas zu machen.
> Ich gehe nach Hause, um zu einschlafen.
> Thanks for replies.



um ein*zu*​schlafen


----------



## Mozzerfan99

poisongift said:


> um ein*zu*​schlafen


Ok, thanks, forgot it was separable.
But is my differentiation between 'um ... zu' and just 'zu' correct?
Cheers.


----------



## poisongift

Mozzerfan99 said:


> Ok, thanks, forgot it was separable.
> But is my differentiation between 'um ... zu' and just 'zu' correct?
> Cheers.



Yeah, I think you've got it right!


----------



## cuore romano

_Ich finde es gut, etwas *W*armes zu essen._


----------



## Mozzerfan99

cuore romano said:


> _Ich finde es gut, etwas *W*armes zu essen._


Why should Warmes be with a capital/ It's an adjective, right?

Last question tho...
Can you then use both 'zu' and 'um...zu' clauses without an object the infinitive?
By that I mean can you say...
Es ist gut, zu lesen.
Ich gehe nach Hause, um zu schlafen.

And are these correct?
Ich finde es gut, Bücher zu lesen.
Es ist gut, Bücher zu lesen.
Bücher zu lesen ist gut.
Es macht viel Spaß, Bücher zu lesen.
Bücher zu lesen macht viel Spaß.

Danke schön


----------



## cuore romano

> Why should Warmes be with a capital/ It's an adjective, right?



Nominalisierung nach Wörtern wie _alles, allerlei, *etwas*, genug, nichts, viel, wenig, jemand, niemand_
http://www.canoo.net/services/GermanSpelling/Regeln/Gross-klein/Nominalisierung.html

Yes, your sentences are correct.


----------



## berndf

Mozzerfan99 said:


> Why should Warmes be with a capital/ It's an adjective, right?


It serves as a noun here. The qualifying indefinite pronoun _etwas _is idiomatic but grammatically unnecessary. _Ich finde es gut, Warmes zu essen_ would be a correct sentence.


----------



## ABBA Stanza

poisongift said:


> You definitely need "um...zu" to really capture the same meaning.
> 
> "Es ist zu heiß, um draußen zu sitzen" = "It is so hot that one cannot/should not sit outside" --> The meaning that you are trying to convey
> 
> "Es ist zu heiß, draußen zu sitzen" = "Sitting outside is too hot" --> Wrong meaning. In this case, the initial "es" is not the same kind of abstract "it" as in the first sentence. Instead, it is a dummy pronoun which delays the subject.




Sorry, PG, but I can't follow your logic here. For me, both German sentences simply mean "it is too hot to sit outside". From my point of view, the "um .. zu" construction can be replaced here by a straight infinitive clause with virtually no change in meaning. Interestingly, I don't think the same applies if the two clauses are reversed:

_Um draußen zu sitzen, ist es zu heiß._ 

_Draußen zu sitzen, ist es zu heiß._ 

In other words, I don't think the latter is even grammatical in this case. Maybe a native speaker could confirm that.

Cheers
Abba


----------



## manfy

ABBA Stanza said:


> _Um draußen zu sitzen, ist es zu heiß._
> 
> _Draußen zu sitzen, ist es zu heiß._
> 
> In other words, I don't think the latter is even grammatical in this case. Maybe a native speaker could confirm that.
> 
> Cheers
> Abba



Interesting approach!!
Right from the beginning I had the same feeling (but without grammatical explanation!)

"Es ist zu heiß, draußen zu sitzen" sounds strange, but not entirely wrong.
I would have said "Es ist zu heiß zum Draußensitzen" (based on my regional language use) and I'm quite sure it's grammatically correct.

And this also works in your rephrasing:
"Zum Draußensitzen ist es zu heiß "


----------



## perny

ABBA Stanza said:


> _Draußen zu sitzen, ist es zu heiß._



I don't think that's what he meant. He is saying that "es" is a placeholder correlate for a clause functioning as a subject. So therefore, if you were to reverse it and actually use it in first position this is what you would write (there can be no "es"),

Draußen zu sitzen, ist zu heiß.
Draußen zu sitzen, das ist zu heiß.

That therefore should therefore make clearer the semantic difference to "zu ..., um zu".


----------



## manfy

perny said:


> Draußen zu sitzen, ist zu heiß.
> Draußen zu sitzen, das ist zu heiß.
> 
> That therefore should therefore make clearer the semantic difference to "zu ..., um zu".



Hmmm....thanks! 
You managed to confuse me even further with a subject that is not supposed to confuse me in the first place -- being a native speaker and all ... 


-----------------
After some more thinking I'd say:
"Draußen zu sitzen, ist zu heiß." is only possible in a figurative sense with "zu heiß" meaning too hot/cool/exciting. And I think that might correspond to teh basic idea of poisongift's post #7.


----------



## berndf

perny said:


> I don't think that's what he meant. He is saying that "es" is a placeholder correlate for a clause functioning as a subject. So therefore, if you were to reverse it and actually use it in first position this is what you would write (there can be no "es"),
> 
> Draußen zu sitzen, ist zu heiß.
> Draußen zu sitzen, das ist zu heiß.
> 
> That therefore should therefore make clearer the semantic difference to "zu ..., um zu".


In nominative case you would use the nominalized plain infinitive and not a _zu_-phrase: _Draußensitzen ist zu heiß_.
_Draußen zu sitzen, ist es zu heiß_ or, for that matter, _Es ist es zu heiß_, _draußen zu sitzen_ would only be acceptable (if at all) as elliptic version of _um..zu_.
I don't think _Draußen zu sitzen, ist zu heiß_ flies in any interpretation.

Strangely, the _zu-_infinitive (which I would analyse as being in essence an adverbial dative) is used in infinitive clauses (not phrases!) that function as noun-equivalents in the main clause: _Ihn zu sehen _[subject]_, bereitet Freude_. I have never really managed to understand the internal logic of this construct. It somehow resembles an ACI the inner logic of which I also find difficult to understand.


----------



## Mozzerfan99

perny said:


> I don't think that's what he meant. He is saying that "es" is a placeholder correlate for a clause functioning as a subject. So therefore, if you were to reverse it and actually use it in first position this is what you would write (there can be no "es"),
> 
> Draußen zu sitzen, ist zu heiß.
> Draußen zu sitzen, das ist zu heiß.
> 
> That therefore should therefore make clearer the semantic difference to "zu ..., um zu".



So 'Draußen zu sitzen, ist zu heiß' means sitting outside is too hot, but is 'Es ist zu heiß, um draußen zu sitzen' it is too hot to sit outside then?
And so would 'Es ist zu heiß, draußen zu sitzen' work grammatically for the first example (albeit a bit too long and cumbersome?)


----------



## Mozzerfan99

berndf said:


> It serves as a noun here. The qualifying indefinite pronoun _etwas _is idiomatic but grammatically unnecessary. _Ich finde es gut, Warmes zu essen_ would be a correct sentence.


Why does that work though, what does it literally mean? 'Cos I was trying to say literally 'in order to eat something warm'.


----------



## berndf

Mozzerfan99 said:


> Why does that work though, what does it literally mean? 'Cos I was trying to say literally 'in order to eat something warm'.


Logic's different in German: _in order to eat some _(=_etwas_) _warm [thing]_ (=_Warmes_). In German, adjectives can be nominalized rather freely which is not so easy in English. There are examples in English, like _The poor are starving_ (_poor_ serves as a noun), but these nominalizations are far less common than in German.


----------



## manfy

Mozzerfan99 said:


> Why does that work though, what does it literally mean? 'Cos I was trying to say literally 'in order to eat something warm'.



It works because in German a nominalized or substantivated adjective can represent any semantically suitable noun phrase, i.e. "Warmes" can mean "etwas Warmes" (something warm) or "ein warmes Essen" (a warm dish), etc.


----------



## perny

Mozzerfan99 said:


> So 'Draußen zu sitzen, ist zu heiß' means sitting outside is too hot, but is 'Es ist zu heiß, um draußen zu sitzen' it is too hot to sit outside then?
> And so would 'Es ist zu heiß, draußen zu sitzen' work grammatically for the first example (albeit a bit too long and cumbersome?)



The purpose of the consecutive "zu..., um...zu" clause is to indicate that the main clause (or something in the main clause) makes the subordinate clause impossible. Indeed, if it is possible to rewrite it using "dass", so that you could use a finite verb, then you could use the subjunctive form of the verb or a modal. For example,

Es ist zu heiß, als dass man draußen sitzen könnte.

This meaning is not possible with only an infinitive clause, unless as berndf says it can be re-interpreted to be a shorthand (elliptic) version of um...zu. Not being a native, I cannot say how likely this is in general or even case-by-case, so I would not use an infinitive clause here.


----------



## poisongift

ABBA Stanza said:


> Sorry, PG, but I can't follow your logic here. For me, both German sentences simply mean "it is too hot to sit outside". From my point of view, the "um .. zu" construction can be replaced here by a straight infinitive clause with virtually no change in meaning. Interestingly, I don't think the same applies if the two clauses are reversed:
> 
> _Um draußen zu sitzen, ist es zu heiß._
> 
> _Draußen zu sitzen, ist es zu heiß._
> 
> In other words, I don't think the latter is even grammatical in this case. Maybe a native speaker could confirm that.
> 
> Cheers
> Abba



The latter isn't grammatical, but you've misunderstood my point, which is that you can't switch the elements and put "Draußen zu sitzen" first because "es" is just a dummy element, i.e., a placeholder which delays the subject. If you put the subject first instead of delaying it, then you don't need the "es" anymore.

"Es ist zu heiß, draußen zu sitzen" and "Es ist zu heiß, *um *draußen zu sitzen" do NOT mean the same thing.


----------



## berndf

poisongift said:


> ...but you've misunderstood my point, which is that you can't switch the elements and put "Draußen zu sitzen" first because "es" is just a dummy element, i.e., a placeholder which delays the subject. If you put the subject first instead of delaying it, then you don't need the "es" anymore.


This would only be the case, if _draußen zu sitzen_ were the subject of the main clause. Apart from the fact that such an analysis would yield something semantically very strange (_*Draußen zu sitzen, ist zu heiß_ would then mean something like _Sitting outside turns one on exceedingly_), a _zu_-infinitive cannot work as a subject (see my post above).

But since _draußen zu sitzen_ is *not *the subject, and I am sure that's Abba's analysis as well, then _es _is *not *a placeholder but a dummy subject and can't be omitted, even if not in first position: Compare _Es regnet_ and _Heute regnet es_. The dummy subject is required in both cases.


----------

