# Verbs coming first in a affirmative clause



## Erick404

I read this sentence in a text directed to German learners. I can understand the meaning, but I'd think that the word order is wrong. Here it is:

"_Blühen diese 'Barbarazweige' an Weihnachten, gilt dies als gutes Zeichen für das kommende Jahr._"

Is it because the second sentence begins with "gilt dies"? Even if it is, it still sounds strange to me. I'd put the verbs on the 2nd position on both sentences. 

Thanks!


----------



## jorge_val_ribera

I think that the first sentence can be interpreted as:

_*Falls* diese 'Barbarazweige' an Weihnachten blühen, ...

_That's why the word order is unusual.


----------



## Carlo66

Jorge is right with his Interpretation and the word order of the original quote is correct.


----------



## Kevman

Note that _gilt_ is in the 2nd position, as that entire first clause occupies the 1st.


----------



## berndf

Kevman said:


> Note that _gilt_ is in the 2nd position, as that entire first clause occupies the 1st.


I disagree. There are two *separate* clauses *each* having its verb in the 1st position. The 1st clause is interpreted as an _if_-clause, the 2nd as a_ then_-clause.


----------



## Kevman

berndf said:


> I disagree. There are two *separate* clauses *each* having its verb in the 1st position. The 1st clause is interpreted as an _if_-clause, the 2nd as a_ then_-clause.


Really? You don't think the conditional phrase functions as a sort of _Nebensatz_ to the whole?  Do we simply have a difference of opinion here, or am I flat-out wrong? 

(Kevman retires to spend the rest of the evening reading his Duden....)


----------



## berndf

The traditional view, at least as I understand it, is not to regard a _Nebensatz_ as as a _position_, i.e. _Satzteil_, of the main clause.

EDIT: I'd like to change my answer a bit. I think this way it is clearer: Have a look here. A clause can function as a sentence element. An example in German would be "Dass er krank ist, war mir nicht bewusst". Here "Dass er krank ist" serves as a subject of the main clause, i.e. it is a "clausal sentence element". In Erick' sentence, this is not the case. Normally, a _Konditionalsatz_ starting with _wenn_ or _falls_ is a _Nebensatz_ and serves as an adverbial determiner in the main clause. In this case where you omit the conjunction the phrase expressing the condition get all the formal characteristics of a _Hauptsatz_. Though the *meaning* is still the same, the entire sentence is *technically* a sequence of _Hauptsätze_. One of the formal characteristics of a _Nebensatz_ (and because it is the easiest, it is often regarded as a _definitory_ demarcation criterion) is that it the auxilliary appears after main verb in composite tenses. Compare these examples:
_Wenn er *gekommen wäre*, *wäre* ich *geblieben*._
_*Wäre* er *gekommen*, *wäre* ich *geblieben*._
You will notice that the omission of the conjunction changes the word order. So technically, the first example is a _Nebensatz-Hautsatz_ sequence (the _Nebensatz_ being an _Adverbialsatz_) while the sencond is a _Hautsatz-Hautsatz_ sequence.


----------



## Derselbe

> Nebensätze können am Satzanfang stehen – in diesem Fall bildet der Nebensatz die
> erste Position und der Hauptsatz beginnt mit einem finiten Verb.



No matter whether you say that the Nebensatz replaces the first position or not. The general rule is:
If a main clause is preceded by a subordinate clause, the main clause starts with the finite verb. If it's easier for you to think of the subordinate clause as the 1st position and the finite verb, therefore, as the 2nd position do so. In the end it just doesn't matter


----------



## Derselbe

berndf said:


> The traditional view, at least as I understand it, is not to regard a _Nebensatz_ as as a _position_, i.e. _Satzteil_, of the main clause.
> 
> EDIT: I'd like to change my answer a bit. I think this way it is clearer: Have a look here. A clause can function as a sentence element. An example in German would be "Dass er krank ist, war mir nicht bewusst". Here "Dass er krank ist" serves as a subject of the main clause, i.e. it is a "clausal sentence element". In Erick' sentence, this is not the case.



I wonder if you could consider the subordinate clause here as an _Konditionalbestimmung_, which would make it a sentence element.
But still, in the end, I think it doesn't matter if one just follows the rule:

_If a main clause is preceded by a subordinate clause, the main clause starts with the finite verb._


----------



## Derselbe

berndf said:


> [s]
> _Wenn er *gekommen wäre*, *wäre* ich *geblieben*._
> _*Wäre* er *gekommen*, *wäre* ich *geblieben*._
> You will notice that the omission of the conjunction changes the word order. So technically, the first example is a _Nebensatz-Hautsatz_ sequence (the _Nebensatz_ being an _Adverbialsatz_) while the sencond is a _Hautsatz-Hautsatz_ sequence.


 
Can you give a proof for that statement, i.e. any kind of citation?

To convince me of your view you need to explain why the word order in the first sentence does not follow the rules for _Hauptsätze_. We can explain this for the 2nd sentence ("wäre ich geblieben"), but you need to explain why "Wäre er gekommen" starts with "wäre" even though the regular word order in _Hauptsätzen_ is S-P-O.

Besides that: I don't know what you mean by "technically". A sentence is either a _Hauptsatz_ or a _Nebensatz_, but it can not "technically" be one while being something else in another respect.


----------



## Hutschi

Derselbe said:


> ...
> To convince me of your view you need to explain why the word order in the first sentence does not follow the rules for _Hauptsätze_.  ...



It does not follow the rules for "Hauptsätze" in the first part of these sentences because it is not a "Hauptsatz." It is a subordinated clause. 

_Wäre er gekommen (Nebensatz, first position as whole phrase), wäre (finite verb, second position) ich geblieben._ 
"_Blühen diese 'Barbarazweige' an Weihnachten__ (Nebensatz, first position as whole phrase)__, gilt __(finite verb, second position) __ dies als gutes Zeichen für das kommende Jahr._"

Bernd already explained this. 

I can give you a quotation with an example:

_ § 74 Nebensätze grenzt man mit Komma ab; sind sie eingeschoben, so
schließt man sie mit paarigem Komma ein.
... Ist dir der Weg zu weit, kannst du mit dem Bus fahren. ..._

*Source:* Regeln und Wörterverzeichnis
Entsprechend den Empfehlungen des
Rats für deutsche Rechtschreibung
Überarbeitete Fassung des amtlichen Regelwerks 2004
München und Mannheim – Februar 2006

You can find it here http://www.ids-mannheim.de/reform/ in "Regeln". 
Note that this is not influenced by the reform, it was not changed.


----------



## berndf

Derselbe said:


> Can you give a proof for that statement, i.e. any kind of citation?


That's what I learnt in high school. In the first section here you find a somewhat weakened statement.




> To convince me of your view you need to explain why the word order in the first sentence does not follow the rules for _Hauptsätze_. We can explain this for the 2nd sentence ("wäre ich geblieben"), but you need to explain why "Wäre er gekommen" starts with "wäre" even though the regular word order in _Hauptsätzen_ is S-P-O.


This is not about the sequence of sentence elements but about the word order *within* the sentence element "predicate" and even within the entity "verb" (namely auxiliary and main verb).




> Besides that: I don't know what you mean by "technically". A sentence is either a _Hauptsatz_ or a _Nebensatz_, but it can not "technically" be one while being something else in another respect.


You *could* take the position that the grammatical role of a partial sentence depends on the semantic role. If you take this position you *could* argue that since the two sentences mean the same thing and the first part of the first sentence is clearly a _Nebensatz_ you the first part of the second be a _Nebensatz_ too. I am *not* doing that and I am using purely syntactical arguments. To make this clear I said "technical".


----------



## Hutschi

I fully support this.  (Misunderstanding)

Even if "Wäre er doch gekommen ..." stands alone, it is a subordinate clause (with an omitted main clause - the dots "..." show this omission).


You *could* take the position that the grammatical role of a partial sentence depends on the semantic role.
In a few cases it really does, especially if there are more than one meanings, it can depend on semantic. But this is clearly not the case in the given examples.


----------



## Derselbe

berndf said:


> I am *not* doing that and I am using purely syntactical arguments. To make this clear I said "technical".


 
Okay, sticking to syntactical arguments you neglect the existence of "uneingeleteter Nebensatz" which is according to my information defined as a subordinate clause without any kind of subjunction but starting with the finite verb. But it's still a subordinate clause.


----------



## Derselbe

Hutschi said:


> I fully support this.
> 
> Even if "Wäre er doch gekommen ..." stands alone, it is a subordinate clause (with an omitted main clause - the dots "..." show this omission).


 

You noticed that this is the opposite of what bernd wrote?


----------



## Derselbe

Hutschi said:


> It does not follow the rules for "Hauptsätze" in the first part of these sentences because it is not a "Hauptsatz." It is a subordinated clause.
> 
> _Wäre er gekommen (Nebensatz, first position as whole phrase), wäre (finite verb, second position) ich geblieben._
> "_Blühen diese 'Barbarazweige' an Weihnachten__ (Nebensatz, first position as whole phrase)__, gilt __(finite verb, second position) __dies als gutes Zeichen für das kommende Jahr._"
> 
> Bernd already explained this.
> 
> I can give you a quotation with an example:
> 
> _§ 74 Nebensätze grenzt man mit Komma ab; sind sie eingeschoben, so_
> _schließt man sie mit paarigem Komma ein._
> _... Ist dir der Weg zu weit, kannst du mit dem Bus fahren. ..._
> 
> *Source:* Regeln und Wörterverzeichnis
> Entsprechend den Empfehlungen des
> Rats für deutsche Rechtschreibung
> Überarbeitete Fassung des amtlichen Regelwerks 2004
> München und Mannheim – Februar 2006
> 
> You can find it here http://www.ids-mannheim.de/reform/ in "Regeln".
> Note that this is not influenced by the reform, it was not changed.


 

This is absolutely supporting my view and challanging bernds view.


----------



## berndf

Derselbe said:


> Okay, sticking to syntactical arguments you neglect the existence of "uneingeleteter Nebensatz" which is according to my information defined as a subordinate clause without any kind of subjunction but starting with the finite verb. But it's still a subordinate clause.


No, I am not denying the existence of such a thing. I am just saying _Wäre er gekommen_ is not one of those because the sentence has Hautsatz word order and for *this* reason is a _Hautsatz_, not because _wenn _is missing.


----------



## Derselbe

berndf said:


> This is not about the sequence of sentence elements but about the word order *within* the sentence element "predicate" and even within the entity "verb" (namely auxiliary and main verb).


 
My information is that affirmative main clauses do in generall not start with finite verbs. The sentence:

_Blühen diese 'Barbarazweige' an Weihnachten_

does start with a finite verb. So if you are saying that this is a main clause you need to tell me a reason why the rule does not apply here.


----------



## Derselbe

berndf said:


> No, I am not denying the existence of such a thing. I am just saying _Wäre er gekommen_ is not one of those because the sentence has Hautsatz word order and for *this* reason is a _Hautsatz_, not because _wenn _is missing.


 
My understanding is that "Wäre er gekommen" is not the standard word order for main clauses. It is the standard word order for "uneingeleiteter Nebensatz". If you are saying this is a main clause, you need to tell us why the generall rule for main clause word order, i.e. S-V-O, does not apply.


----------



## berndf

Hutschi said:


> It does not follow the rules for "Hauptsätze" in the first part of these sentences because it is not a "Hauptsatz." It is a subordinated clause.


I am indeed arguing the opposite. What you quoted from me earlier is what I said you *could* say but *I* am *not* saying. Sorry if my expression might have been a bit round-about and confusing.


----------



## berndf

Derselbe said:


> My understanding is that "Wäre er gekommen" is not the standard word order for main clauses. It is the standard word order for "uneingeleiteter Nebensatz". If you are saying this is a main clause, you need to tell us, why the generall rule for main clause word order, i.e. S-V-O, does not apply.


_Wäre ich geblieben_ has the very same word order and is a _Hautsatz_, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Again, not the order of sentence elements (S, V, O) matters but the sequence *within* "V" (_wäre geblieben_ - _Nebensatz_ order is _geblieben wäre_).


----------



## Hutschi

Sorry. I stroke it through. I indeed say the opposite.

Of course, the whole sentence is a main clause and starts with a subordinate clause - if you want to interpret it this way. In this case a main clause can start with a verb, because it starts with a subordinated clause and the subordinated clause starts with a verb. 

I thought I understood it, but I am really confused now, too.

_"Wäre er gekommen"_ - as far as I understand this, this has not the word order of a main clause.  Syntactically it can not be a main clause.
Syntactically the second one cannot be a subordinated clause. 

If we do not want to introduce a third kind of clauses, the first part is a subordinated clause and the second part a main clause.

My quoted example _
§ 74 Nebensätze grenzt man mit Komma ab; sind sie eingeschoben, so_
_schließt man sie mit paarigem Komma ein._
_... *Ist dir der Weg zu weit, kannst du mit dem Bus fahren.* ..._

talks about Nebensätze. _Ist dir der Weg zu weit, kannst du mit dem Bus fahren. - _this has the same structure as the discussed sentences.


----------



## Derselbe

I'm sorry I have to disagree.
The correct word oder for an affirmative main clause is:
"Ich wäre geblieben".
If it is changed to "Wäre ich geblieben" you still need to give us a reason for that change. 

I understood that you are saying that in subordinate clauses the auxiliary verb does always stand behind the full verb. But according to my understanding this statement is just not true. It might be valid for most subordinate clauses, maybe even the vast majority, but it is not true for all subordinate clauses. The word order in "uneingeleteter Nebensatz" differs significantly from other subordinate clauses.


----------



## Bahiano

Erick404 said:


> I read this sentence in a text directed to German learners. I can understand the meaning, but I'd think that the word order is wrong. Here it is:
> 
> "_Blühen diese 'Barbarazweige' an Weihnachten, gilt dies als gutes Zeichen für das kommende Jahr._"
> 
> Is it because the second sentence begins with "gilt dies"? Even if it is, it still sounds strange to me. I'd put the verbs on the 2nd position on both sentences.
> 
> Thanks!


 
Erick,
já que você está achando estranho, tem que se acostumar nisso, pois é regra! Mas, para você se sentir melhor, neste caso o 'wenn...dann...' é omitido, ou seja
- Blühen diese 'Barbarazweige' an Weihnachten, gilt dies als gutes Zeichen für das kommende Jahr.
é o mesmo que
- Wenn diese 'Barbarazweige' an Weihnachten blühen, dann gilt dies als gutes Zeichen für das kommende Jahr.

Since you're feeling strange with this you'll have to get used to it, because it is the rule!
But, in order to make you feel better, in this case 'wenn...dann...' is omitted, which means that
- Blühen diese 'Barbarazweige' an Weihnachten, gilt dies als gutes Zeichen für das kommende Jahr.
is the same as
- Wenn diese 'Barbarazweige' an Weihnachten blühen, dann gilt dies als gutes Zeichen für das kommende Jahr.


----------



## Derselbe

Hutschi said:


> talks about Nebensätze. _Ist dir der Weg zu weit, kannst du mit dem Bus fahren. - _this has the same structure as the discussed sentences.


 
What bernd is actually saying is that the order of *the different parts of the verb *can never be auxiliary verb before full verb in a subordinate clause. Therefore "Wäre er gekommen" can not be a subordinate clause since the auxiliary verb precedes the full verb.

We disagree on that statement. My point of view is that auxiliary verbs can of course precede their full verbs in subordinate clauses.


----------



## Derselbe

Interesting question for bernd:

"_Ist dir der Weg zu weit, kannst du mit dem Bus fahren." _

Is _Ist dir der Weg zu weit_ a main clause or a subordinate clause?


________
Okay I'm gonna go study... See you in some hours!


----------



## Hutschi

Bahiano said:


> But, in order to make you feel better, in this case 'wenn...dann...' is omitted, which means that
> - Blühen diese 'Barbarazweige' an Weihnachten, gilt dies als gutes Zeichen für das kommende Jahr.
> is the same as
> - Wenn diese 'Barbarazweige' an Weihnachten blühen, dann gilt dies als gutes Zeichen für das kommende Jahr.



This is true. It has the same meaning. You can also omit "dann" without changing the meaning.

Wenn diese 'Barbarazweige' an Weihnachten blühen, gilt dies als gutes Zeichen für das kommende Jahr.

If you restructure it:
Als gutes Zeichen gilt es, wenn diese 'Barbarazweige' zu Weihnachten blühen. (... in my region it is "zu") 

you see the second part of your example is a main clause.


----------



## berndf

Derselbe said:


> I'm sorry I have to disagree.
> The correct word oder for an affirmative main clause is:
> "Ich wäre geblieben".
> If it is changed to "Wäre ich geblieben" you still need to give us a reason for that change.


I think the issue is whether you accept regarding in
_Wäre er gekommen, wäre ich geblieben._
one as a _Nebensatz _and one as a _Hauptsatz_ although they show exactly the same word order and the whole sentence inverts its meaning, if you invert the order of the two clauses:
_Wäre ich geblieben, wäre er gekommen._

The way I learnt the distinction at high school - and I agree, it is debateable - being a _Nebensatz_ is property you can determine by looking at it alone.

I guess it is ultimately a question of definition. And definitions are not _true_ or _false_ but _useful _or _not useful_.


----------



## Hutschi

Derselbe said:


> Interesting question for bernd:
> 
> "_Ist dir der Weg zu weit, kannst du mit dem Bus fahren." _
> 
> Is _Ist dir der Weg zu weit_ a main clause or a subordinate clause?



This is a subordinate clause as far as I understand it. It cannot stand alone.
But the second part can stand alone. In this case you have to move the verb to the new second position.

_Du __kannst __mit dem Bus fahren._
_Du __kannst __mit dem Bus fahren, ist dir der Weg zu weit._
_Du __kannst __mit dem Bus fahren, wenn dir der Weg zu weit ist.
_
This is not possible for the part: "Ist dir der Weg zu weit".


----------



## berndf

Hutschi said:


> This is not possible for the part: "Ist dir der Weg zu weit".


_Ist dir der Weg zu weit*?*_
It is a valid _Hauptsatz_ order, though.


----------



## Bahiano

Hutschi said:


> (...)you see the second part of your example is a main clause.


I never doubted this...


----------



## Hutschi

berndf said:


> I think the issue is whether you accept regarding in
> _Wäre er gekommen, wäre ich geblieben._
> one as a _Nebensatz _and one as a _Hauptsatz_ although they show exactly the same word order ...



They do not have the same word order.

One has:
Wäre (1. position) er gekommen (...).
The other has
(...), wäre (2. position) ich geblieben.  

In the first part, the verb is at the first position.
In the second part it is at the second position.

"Position" is not related to words but to phrases.


----------



## Derselbe

berndf said:


> The way I learnt the distinction at high school - and I agree, it is debateable - being a _Nebensatz_ is property you can determine by looking at it alone.


 
That means 
1) you only accept subordinate clauses introduced by some kind of subjunction or the like. 
2) you neglect the existence of "uneingeleiteter Nebensatz" because you can not determine whether they are main clauses or subordinate clauses by looking at them and, therefore, according to you they are always main clauses. 
3) you can not make a semantic distinction between "Ist dir der Weg zu weit" expressing a question and "Ist dir der Weg zu weit" expressing a condition. 
4) in your system main clauses can be _Konditionalsätze_.

Sure you can do that. But my understanding is that that would introduce a fundamentally new understanding of German grammar. And you'll have to explain why affirmative main clauses can start with finite verbs. 
You're right: In the end it's a question of what is usefull. 

For my share I agree with hutschi's last post. The word order is not the same since the verb in the 2nd clause is in the 2nd position, which is standard word order for affirmative main clauses.


----------



## Hutschi

berndf said:


> _Ist dir der Weg zu weit*?*_
> It is a valid _Hau*p*tsatz_ order, though.



Yes, of course. But it is a question. Also imperatives and some other have different orders. _*Are these affirmative clauses?  *_(_Ja, du kannst!_ is affirmative.)

_Ist dir der Weg zu weit*.  *_... this is wrong, however.


As far as I understand it, in German punctuation marks are essential markers in the German language - and this is true even after the reform which wanted to weaken them ...

Correct are:

_Ist dir der Weg zu weit?
__Ist dir der Weg zu weit ..._
Ist dir der Weg zu weit, (dann/so) musst Du eben hierbleiben.
... ist dir der Weg zu weit.
... ist dir also der Weg zu weit. (... da ist dir also der Weg zu weit.)

Esse jetzt!

A special (and strange) case is:
... gehe gerade eben über die Straße und finde eine Münze.

This form with omitted subject is used some times, especially when speaking about experiences. 

"... bin gerad wach geworden, da sehe ich einen Frosch." 

It looks very similar to the examples in this thread, but there is a big difference.

The subject is there, but it is empty.

"(Ich) bin gerad wach geworden, da sehe ich einen Frosch." 

"Gehen wir los!" is another form with the verb at the first position.


Punctuation marks change the meaning and change the function of words.


----------



## berndf

Derselbe said:


> Sure you can do that. But my understanding is that that would introduce a fundamentally new understanding of German grammar. And you'll have to explain why affirmative main clauses can start with finite verbs.
> You're right: In the end it's a question of what is usefull.
> 
> For my share I agree with hutschi's last post. The word order is not the same since the verb in the 2nd clause is in the 2nd position, which is standard word order for affirmative main clauses.


 
Ich denke, wir können auch auf Deutsch weitermachen. Wer dafür nicht genug Deutsch kann, den haben wir mit dieser Diskussion wohl ohnehin schon verscheucht.

Ihr beide beginnt mich zu überzeugen. Man kann den Nebensatzcharakter von _Wäre er gekommen _tatsächlich rein formal und ohne Verkünstelung begründen.

Lasst es mich mal probieren:
_Hilfsverb-Subjekt-Hauptverb_ ist eine Wortfolge, die es in Hauptsätzen unter zwei Bedingungen gibt:
Frage: _Wäre er gekommen?_
Affirmativer oder Ausrufesatz mit initialer adverbialer Bestimmung: _Gestern wäre er gekommen. _(oder ...!)

Wenn man diese Prämisse auf
_Wäre er gekommen, wäre ich geblieben._
anwendet, so kommt diese Wortstellung im Hauptsatz zur Anwendung, weil dieser mit dem Adverbialsatz _Wäre er gekommen_ anfängt. Hingegen kann _Wäre er gekommen_ selbst kein Hauptsatz sein, weil er weder eine Frage ist, noch mit einer adverbialen Bestimmung beginnt.

Ist das gut so? Diese Sichtweise ist einfach und konsistent, also als Definition "useful".


----------



## Hutschi

So hatte ich es im Prinzip gemeint.

Es trifft sogar auf den Satz zu:
_Hätte ich recht, hätte ich recht. 
_ 
Es kann aber weitere Fälle geben.

_Ins Haus ist er gekommen. _
(Hat "Ins Haus" hier adverbiale Funktion?)

Es gibt auch den Fall, dass ein Objekt nach vorn geschoben wird.

_Den Krug hat er genommen. _

Man kann die beiden zusammenfügen, es bleiben zwei Hauptsätze:

_Ins Haus ist er gekommen, den Krug hat er genommen._ Hauptsatz + Hauptsatz
Das ist ein völlig anderer Fall als bei:
_Ist er ins Haus gekommen, hat er ihn mitgenommen._ Nebensatz + Hauptsatz (Unser oben lange diskutierter Fall.)

In der DDR haben wir übrigens den Nebensatz als Schüler "Gliedsatz" genannt, das zeigt besser, dass es ein Satzglied ist.

_... ist rein ins Haus gekommen, hat ihn gleich mitgenommen._  In dieser Form steht das Verb tatsächlich scheinbar an erster Stelle. Aber: Das Subjekt ist lediglich weggelassen worden. "Er" oder "sie" stecken in den Punkten am Anfang. Solche Strukturen findet man oft in Märchen.


Auch in der Poesie ist die Struktur möglich, hier herrscht zum Teil eine andere Grammatik als in der Prosa:

_Hat der alte Hexenmeister ..._


----------



## berndf

Hutschi said:


> Ins Haus ist er gekommen.
> (Hat "Ins Haus" hier adverbiale Funktion?)


Ich denke, ja.



> Es gibt auch den Fall, dass ein Objekt nach vorn geschoben wird.
> 
> Den Krug hat er genommen.


Ok, man muss die Aussage wohl noch etwas verallgemeinern. Es sind nicht nur Adverbiale Bestimmungen, saondern auch andere Satzteile. Wichtig ist nur, dass noch ein Satzteil vor dem Hilfsverb kommt.

Umgekehrt darf im Nebensatz aber nichts vor dem Hilfsverb kommen, um die Struktur nicht zu zerstören. Füge ich z.B. eine adverbiale Bestimmung hinzu, so darf dies nicht am Anfang stehen:
_Wäre sie *gestern *gekommen, hätte ich das gemerkt._


----------



## Kevman

Hi guys,
(Ich kehre in Englisch wieder, wenn das in Ordnung ist, weil mein 'Deutschlesen' besser ist als mein 'Deutschschreiben'. )
I've consulted my copy of the Duden (which, unfortunately is about 40 years old, so I don't know if there have since been any revisions on this topic) and it supports... Bernd! 

Under section 6375,  *Umstandssätze als Gliedsätze ohne Einleitwort*, an _Umstandssatz_ can serve as a _Gliedsatz_, *but* rather than the conditional _Gliedsatz_ occupying a sentence position, both clauses function more like two complete sentences laid side by side.  They are related/differentiated either by contrasting word order or by the use of a conjunction.  Since our example concerns a conditional _Gliedsatz_ beginning with a finite verb, the word order of the _Hauptsatz_ should remain normal.

Duden cites this example sentence from Schiller (note _er_ in the 1st postition in the _Hauptsatz_): Warf er das Schwert von sich, er war verloren.

If not the subject, then a conjunction seems required to occupy that 1st position:
Seid ihr aufgeregt, dann glückt euch gar nichts.
Versagen die Bremsen, so ist alles vorloren.
 
In fact, Duden explicitly advises:


> Gefüge, in denen sich der Haupt- und Gliedsatz weder durch ein Korrelat noch durch die Wortstellung unterscheiden, sollte man vermeiden:
> Nicht: _Will ein Besitzer Grundstücke veraüßern_, hat er eine Meldung zu machen.
> Besser: ..., _dann_ hat er eine Meldung zu machen.


So according to Duden, Erick404's original quotation seems technically grammatically false.  It _should_ be something like: Blühen diese 'Barbarazweige' an Weihnachten, _dann_ gilt dies als gutes Zeichen für das kommende Jahr.
However, Erick's original sentence sounded fine to me (and heck, I've been learning German now for over a _year!_), and I think the length of this discussion attests to the fact that it doesn't sound particularly ill-formed to native speakers, so I think this might be a case where actual usage trumps the prescriptive grammatical rule.

My suspicion as to _why_ this usage sounds okay: because the conditional clause _sounds_ like a _Gliedsatz_ occupying the 1st position before the finite verb of the _Hauptsatz_, which in other cases is the norm.

(I hope I'm understanding the discussion right, and haven't gotten in over my head here!)


----------



## Derselbe

Hi Kevman! Thanks for getting involved!



Kevman said:


> Under section 6375,  *Umstandssätze als Gliedsätze ohne Einleitwort*, an _Umstandssatz_ can serve as a _Gliedsatz_, *but* rather than the conditional _Gliedsatz_ occupying a sentence position, both clauses function more like two complete sentences laid side by side.  They are related/differentiated either by contrasting word order or by the use of a conjunction.  Since our example concerns a conditional _Gliedsatz_ beginning with a finite verb, the word order of the _Hauptsatz_ should remain normal.


My understanding of that passage is:
There are two possibilities, i.e. 
(1) Umstandssatz als Gliedsatz
(2) Two complete sentences

The phrase Warf er das Schwert von sich, er war verloren. is an example for the 2nd group. The first clause is not occupying a sentence position. Therefore the 2nd clause begins with "er". 
In case (1) the 2nd clause would begin with an finite verb, because the Umstandssatz already occupies the 1st sentence position. 

So:
Group (1):
_*Ist dir der Weg zu weit, kannst du mit dem Bus fahren.
*_Group (2):_*Ist dir der Weg zu weit, du kannst mit dem Bus fahren.*_

The duden confirms that in group (1) construction the 1st clause is a subordinate clause.
Then the duden suggests to use the 2nd possibility, though. And they say that the 1st clause in group (2) constructions is not a subordinate clause... Actually if i heard a sentence like
_*Ist dir der Weg zu weit, du kannst mit dem Bus fahren.*_
i would understand it as
_*Ist dir der Weg zu weit? Du kannst mit dem Bus fahren.*_

I'm not sure if Warf er das Schwert von sich, er war verloren. is really contemporary. It's definitely not wrong, though.

But I'm going to think about it again...



> Seid ihr aufgeregt, dann glückt euch gar nichts.
> Versagen die Bremsen, so ist alles vorloren.



That sounds rather repetitive to my ears and I wouldn't say it unless I want to particularly stress something. To me it sounds the same as 
"Weil ich aufgeregt bin, darum glückt mir nichts."
which doesn't really make much sense.



> However, Erick's original sentence sounded fine to me (and heck, I've been learning German now for over a _year!_), and I think the length of this discussion attests to the fact that it doesn't sound particularly ill-formed to native speakers, so I think this might be a case where actual usage trumps the prescriptive grammatical rule.


I just think the rule is outdated. 


> My suspicion as to _why_ this usage sounds okay: because the conditional clause _sounds_ like a _Gliedsatz_ occupying the 1st position before the finite verb of the _Hauptsatz_, which in other cases is the norm.


That's exactly my understanding.

I'm going to get a good desciptive grammar book next week at university and see what Engel writes on this issue.


----------



## Erick404

Thank you, it is now clear to me. I dont understand much of the technical discussion going on here, but I'm content to know that such phrases are correct and understandable to me.


----------



## berndf

Derselbe said:


> I'm going to get a good desciptive grammar book next week at university and see what Engel writes on this issue.


Da bin ich gespannt!


----------



## Hutschi

Derselbe said:


> ...
> I'm not sure if Warf er das Schwert von sich, er war verloren. is really contemporary. It's definitely not wrong, though.


 
I'm sure that this is not a sentence following the standard rules of today.
The finite verb "war" is at the third position, if the first part is considered as correct and as subordinated clause.
If you consider "er war verloren." as correct, the first part is incorrect. It cannot be a subordinated clause following the contemporary rules - because it needs one place in counting the positions. But neither it is a main clause in this form.

In poetic or dramatic language it may be correct, however.

In standard language, you can correct it in two ways:

Warf er das Schwert von sich, war erverloren. (one main clause)
Da warf er das Schwert von sich, er war verloren. (two main clauses)

Another possibility would be:
... warf er das Schwert von sich, er war verloren.
This indicates that the first sentence is not complete.


----------

