# eine Flasche Ketchup



## screamerer

Hallo, guten Tag..,

You go into a supermarket and ask: "*Ich hätte gern eine Flasche Ketchup und einen liter Milch*"

What's _*Flasche*_ and _*liter*_ there? .. I mean, I know both are nouns that denote quantites, but what's their grammatical position? how do they relate to the noun that follows?


----------



## Kajjo

The following noun is an apposition.

http://www.canoo.net/services/Onlin.../Nomen/Apposition.html#Anchor-Partitive-33869


----------



## bearded

[Kajjo: ''Apposition.'']

Ich denke aber, dass die Frage nicht Ketchup und Milch (Appositionen), sondern die Wörter Flasche und Liter und deren grammatische Natur betrifft.  Meiner Meinung nach sind es - im Beispielsatz - Maßeinheiten.

In English: in my opinion, they are units of measure. Ketchup and Milk are the appositions.


----------



## Kajjo

Ist Maßeinheit eine grammatische Kategorie? Hier sind "eine Flasche Ketchup" einfach das Objekt. Ketchup ist eine Apposition zu Flasche.


----------



## bearded

Kajjo said:


> Ketchup ist eine Apposition zu Flasche


Eben.
Frage: what's Flasche and Liter here?
Deine Antwort (#2): Apposition.
( Ich will keine Polemik starten, bin nur so pingelig - von Natur aus )

Flasche und Liter sind natürlich Objekte in dem Satz.


----------



## Hutschi

Hi, whether Mengen und Maßeinheiten (Quantities and Measurements) are considered as grammatical category depends on the school.

There were different opinions in the past.

"Englisch lernen Online" assumes them as separate grammar units, for example.
http://www.englisch-lernen-online.d...und-masseinheiten-quantities-and-measurements

In "Syntaktische Kategorien
http://www.christianlehmann.eu/ling...stem/grammar/morph_syn/syntakt_kategorien.php
only numerals are considered as special kinds of words.


Liter is a noun, so uppercase "*Ich hätte gern eine Flasche Ketchup und einen Liter Milch*"


----------



## screamerer

Hallo, Gute Nacht!, ..


I can't help but notice how phrases like _*eine Flasche Ketchup*_ and *einen Liter Milch *resemble constructs in which undeclined *viel* is followed by uncountable singular noun:

_*Ich habe viel Geld ausgegeben*_.

I believe I haven't, up to now, come across an explanation as to why that is so. _*The point is*_: can we extend that apposition thinking to such constructs, thus *Geld* is simply an apposition to *viel* (which in turn is a pronoun and thus resolves into a noun)? It would then make sense why the pronoun is left undeclined.. .

Geht?


----------



## bearded

screamerer said:


> _*Ich habe viel Geld ausgegeben*_.
> I believe I haven't, up to now, come across an explanation as to why that is so. _*The point is*_: can we extend that apposition thinking to such constructs, thus *Geld* is simply an apposition to *viel* (which in turn is a pronoun and thus resolves into a noun)? It would then make sense why the pronoun is left undeclined.. .


Hello
I share your point of view (originally: Geld apposition to viel), and hope that our German friends will, too.


----------



## manfy

screamerer said:


> _*The point is*_: can we extend that apposition thinking to such constructs, thus *Geld* is simply an apposition to *viel* (which in turn is a pronoun and thus resolves into a noun)? It would then make sense why the pronoun is left undeclined.. .
> 
> Geht?


 
 You _can_ say anything as long as you can prove your theory to be universally true and as long as you find enough supporters that prefer your theory over any existing explanation!

Then, how would you explain this:
"Die neue Regierung hat in den ersten 12 Monaten seit Amtsantritt bereits genauso *viele Gelder* veruntreut, wie die alte Regierung in ihrer gesamten 4-jährigen Amtszeit. Der Kanzler bezeichnete dies als klares, positives Zeichen der proaktiven Handlungsweise seiner Partei ..."


----------



## bearded

@manfy 
Do you feel that in the expressions _eine Flasche Milch _and _viel Milch_ the word 'Milch' has different functions?
And - I would think - the plural _Gelder _is a special case.  When used in the plural, it becomes no more uncountable (viel*e). *But when you say _viel Geld, _then _Geld_ is really uncountable - just like _Milch _in _eine Flasche Milch._
And _Geld _is not the only substantive that can be used in a countable and non-countable way: just think of _viel Wein _and _die besten Weine._


----------



## manfy

I'm not denying that it might be possible to create a special theory and grammar rule for the uninflected forms of indefinite numbers. That rule might even be perfectly coherent and valid for "viel and wenig".

But would it simplify the German grammar as a whole or would it be just another (possibly odd) rule to learn? A rule that probably would have no equivalent in any other language, not even in the same language family.
My guess is that it is quite difficult to find new, "improved" rules for a language that is a 1000 years old because I'm assuming that that's exactly what all the professional, full-time linguists did in those 1000 years: They tried to come up with the simplest, most logical grammar rule set with the least amount of rules and exceptions to learn.


----------



## bearded

You are right, manfy, although in my opinion screamerer was not searching for a rule that should replace the existing one, but just for an explanation of the...phenomenon of the 'uninflected form' (''can we extend the apposition _thinking''?). _The rule just says that in some cases adjectives of measure are uninflected - OK.


----------



## berndf

manfy said:


> But would it simplify the German grammar as a whole or would it be just another (possibly odd) rule to learn? A rule that probably would have no equivalent in any other language, not even in the same language family.
> My guess is that it is quite difficult to find new, "improved" rules for a language that is a 1000 years old because I'm assuming that that's exactly what all the professional, full-time linguists did in those 1000 years: They tried to come up with the simplest, most logical grammar rule set with the least amount of rules and exceptions to learn.


If it would provide an intuitively understandable rationale then yes and this happens to be the case. The whole thing is around whether a quantity is grammatically analysed as countable or non-countable. That is why you say _viel Milch _but _viele Flaschen Milch_.

I agree with you that it makes little sense to try to device a rule that covers each and every exception and peculiarity. Those you simply have to learn. But as a guiding principle the countable/non-countable anlysis is quite useful. It also explains _viel Geld_ vs. _viele Gelder_ = _much money_ vs. _many appropriations_.


----------



## manfy

Fair enough.
I guess, for "viel Geld/Zeit/Arbeit" you could look at the noun as an apposition.

But since such a view must be generally valid for the same class of words, my first counter example might be:
"Es kamen viele Leute." -> "Es kamen viele." => ergo, 'viele' can be seen as a noun; why is this inflected?

Personally, I find the explanation of "Geld/Zeit/Arbeit/Gepäck/etc." being seen as a singular unit/allotment of something more convincing.

crossed with Bernd


----------



## bearded

But you also can say _(zu)viel Leute. _If 'Leute' is considered non-countable, then _viel _is uninflected.


----------



## berndf

bearded man said:


> But you also can say _(zu)viel Leute. _If 'Leute' is considered non-countable, then _viel _is uninflected.


I perceive _viel Leute_ intuitively as a contraction, i.e. _viel'Leute_. But it could also be a conflation of _viel Leut_ (literally _much people_) and _viele Leute_ (literally_ many people*s*_). I don't know. At any rate, it is the same problem as with English people that has the double meaning of _group of persons_ and _Volk_. Only in German the singular has become obsolete and the plural has taken over the original singular meaning of _group of persons_ while the original plural meaning _Leute = people*s*_ is lost.


----------



## Kajjo

screamerer said:


> _*The point is*_: can we extend that apposition thinking to such constructs, thus *Geld* is simply an apposition to *viel* (which in turn is a pronoun and thus resolves into a noun)? It would then make sense why the pronoun is left undeclined.. .


Well, surely this will not be a new rule, but if it helps you to figure out a concept to cling to, then this is a fine enough rule of thumb for you.

I feel you are right that there are close similarities of how natives "feel" why there is no declension in both examples. I agree there is a certain relation between them.

Please note that this only applies to singular nouns. In plural occurs normal declension.

http://www.canoo.net/services/OnlineGrammar/Wort/Adjektiv/Zahlen/Unbestimmt.html


----------



## bearded

berndf said:


> I perceive _viel Leute_ intuitively as a contraction, i.e. _viel'Leute_.


I respectfully disagree.  Duden knows a 'viel (unflektiert, Plural)' and provides examples _mach nicht so viel Worte! , viel nützliche Hinweise...  _
It would appear (to me) that, whenever a plural noun is perceived as non-countable, _viel _- and possibly _wenig - _remain uninflected. _So wenig Leute kamen zum Vortrag... so wenig Eier hast du gegessen..(_meine Beispiele diesmal).


----------



## screamerer

I did some searching online and found out (understood, to be more precise) *Leute *is a count-noun with a little peculiarity to it: it's only used in the plural form (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Leute).

That page also states that, and as berndf said above, there exists "*Leut*" (people) and "*Leute*" (peoples).

Also, as bearded man said, if the noun is considered non-countable (which I don't see why it couldn't, in colloquial language at least - *Geld*, for example, can be physically counted, but is still then more conveniently (I guess) regarded as non-countable), then _viel _is uninflected.


Vielen Dank.


----------



## Kajjo

_Leute _is a very typical and strict _plurale tantum_. There is no singular form _Leut_. Of course, one can form it, but is is extremely non-idiomatic on the border to ridiculous.


----------



## berndf

Kajjo said:


> The exists nur singular form _Leut_.


Not any more. The issue here is not the current usage but its evolution.


----------



## berndf

bearded man said:


> I respectfully disagree. Duden knows a 'viel (unflektiert, Plural)' and provides examples _mach nicht so viel Worte! , viel nützliche Hinweise.._


How can quoting the Duden be a ground for disagreeing with the personal testimony of my native speaker's subjective intuition? It is difficult to state totally objective rules here every native speaker could agree to. I would, e.g., agree with _viel Worte_ (but I would never say _viel Wörter_, only _viel*e* Wörter_, by the way) but not with _viel Hinweise_. That would make by teeth cringe.

I conceded in the same post that my intuition could fool me as there also is a different, more objective, explanation why one says _viel Leute_, viz. because the modern plural took the place of the historical singular (and therefore non-countable) _Leut_.


----------



## bearded

(Always very respectfully, and the more so because I am not a native speaker): it surprises me that your subjective intuition can admit _viel Worte_ but cannot admit _viel Leute  _so that you are inclined to surmise contractions etc,.. And may I ask you what your opinion is on _wenig Leute _and similar? Thank you.


----------



## berndf

bearded man said:


> it surprises me that your subjective intuition can admit _viel Worte_ but cannot admit _viel Leute_


_Worte_, in contrast to _Wörter_, is non-countable to me, _Leute_ again countable.


bearded man said:


> so that you are inclined to surmise contractions etc


Yes, usage is not inter-subjectively consistent. That is my hypothesis and that, if I am right, makes the analysis difficult.


bearded man said:


> what your opinion is on _wenig Leute_


For some reason _wenig Leute _appears less cognitively dissonant to me than _viel Leute_. I cannot tell you why.


----------



## Gernot Back

I think indeed, that using the attributive adjectives _viel _or _wenig _in their positive forms with or without inflectional ending has sth. to do with the following noun being countable or not. A simple test might illustrate this: A lot of substances in our every-day life, especially ingredients of food, are felt to be uncountable: _Zucker_, _Wasser_, _Mehl_, _Salz _etc.. Usually we don't put them into the plural. Only in technical language, it is possible to form countable plurals, which would then always be used with an inflected form of _wenig _or _viel_.

So, a nutritionist or chemist would speak of _wenige Zucker_,_ viele Wässer_,_ wenige Mehle_,_ viele Salze_ etc., while a housewife or househusband would say _wenig Zucker_,_ viel Wasser_,_ wenig Mehl_,_ viel Salz._

Another interesting aspect is that, when using the comparative form of _wenig_, even nutrionists or chemists would probably not say:

_Ich habe weniger*e* Zucker in dieser Marmelade gefunden als in der anderen._​Or would they?

I guess, what canoo.net writes about plurals


> Plural, mostly inflected (genitive always inflected):
> _Mit wenigen Ausnahmen_ less frequently: _Mit wenig Ausnahmen
> Ich mache mir nicht viele Gedanken._ less frequently: _Ich mache mir nicht viel Gedanken.
> Ich mache mir nur wenige Gedanken._ less frequently: _Ich mache mir nur wenig Gedanken.
> Er besitzt nur wenige Bücher._ less frequently: _Er besitzt nur wenig Bücher. _


... will not apply for the comparatives, which is evident in the case of _mehr_, where the inflected form does not even exist due to possible confusion with _mehrere_.

_*Ich mache mir auch nicht mehre(re) Gedanken als du._​In the case of _weniger_, too, I would definitely say that on the contrary

_Mit weniger*en* Ausnahmen_
_?__ Ich mache mir auch nicht weniger*e* Gedanken als du._

_Er besitzt noch weniger*e* Bücher als ich._
is less frequent than

_Mit weniger Ausnahmen. _​
_Ich mache mir auch nicht weniger Gedanken als du._​
_Er besitzt noch weniger Bücher als ich._​
​


----------



## bearded

Gernot Back said:


> Another interesting aspect is that, when using the comparative form of _wenig_, even nutrionists or chemists would probably not say:
> _Ich habe weniger*e* Zucker in dieser Marmelade gefunden als in der anderen._
> Or would they?


A very interesting issue indeed. If they said 'weniger Zucker', the quality of the sugar would not be specified.  Since 'wenigere Zucker' does not sound very idiomatic, they'd probably say 'wenigere Zuckersorten' or 'eine kleinere Anzahl der (an?) Zuckersorten' to indicate different types of sugar.


----------



## perpend

screamerer said:


> Hallo, guten Tag..,
> 
> You go into a supermarket and ask: "*Ich hätte gern eine Flasche Ketchup und einen liter Milch*"
> 
> What's _*Flasche*_ and _*liter*_ there? .. I mean, I know both are nouns that denote quantites, but what's their grammatical position? how do they relate to the noun that follows?



It would have to be a high-end store to march in and say: Ich hätte gern X und Y.

Ist es so ein Geschäft?


----------



## screamerer

perpend said:


> It would have to be a high-end store to march in and say: Ich hätte gern X und Y.
> 
> Ist es so ein Geschäft?


Es ist nicht. Es ist nur mine Vorstellung! (wie Beispiele im Buch von meinem Kurs)


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> _Ich habe weniger*e* Zucker in dieser Marmelade gefunden als in der anderen._
> Or would they?


Probably not. But no native speaker, that I am rather confident of, would have the slightest hesitation to identify this as a well formed sentence and as a statement about the diversity of types of sugar rather than of the quantity of sugar. So, even if it is not idiomatic, the interpretation is unambiguous.


----------



## screamerer

Intuitively speaking, those adjectival pronouns seem to have two sides to them that manifest _mutually exclusively_ as regard one another:

They either exist as a quality of the noun that follows (adjectival), in which case the _pronoun_ nature is subsided by the _attributive_ nature..

Or, they stand more distinctly and independently as pronouns, whereby their _attributive_ nature is diminished and lost.

In the later case, and contrary to the first, it's like the pronoun becomes the main concept (noun), and the real, natural noun that follows loses its usual stand as occupying space and actually existing, and is rather then merely serving to materialize that preceding quantity by giving it semantics - apposition.

That second scenario seems to suit situations where one's main focus is on quantity and/or measure rather than on things themselves. I guess this is especially the case with comparisons where views are typically shifted toward quantity as the main
topic rather than what's being actually quantified.


I'm not sure of the following example being correct, but please take a look at it:

*Ich arbeite weniger Stunden als ein Arzt.* (I work less hours than a doctor.)

However, when _weniger_ is declined, the comparative effect is lost with the pronoun-turned-adjective:

*Ich arbeite wenigere Stunden als ein Arzt.* (As a doctor, I work less-hours.)


..


----------



## Kajjo

bearded man said:


> If they said 'weniger Zucker', the quality of the sugar would not be specified.


Right, this is just about quantity.



> Since 'wenigere Zucker' does not sound very idiomatic, they'd probably say 'wenigere Zuckersorten' or 'eine kleinere Anzahl der (an?) Zuckersorten' to indicate different types of sugar.


Indeed, they do. 

Zuckersorten usually refers to normal sugar in its different types like household sugar, icing sugar, rock sugar and so on: http://www.essen-und-trinken.de/zucker/zucker-die-verschiedenen-sorten-1009245.html

Zuckerarten usually refers to the chemical diversity like saccharose, fructose, lactose, maltose and so on. In the legislative perspective Zuckerarten includes Zuckersorten, though, and also mixtures like inverted sugar syrup.


----------



## Schlabberlatz

This one is interesting, I think:
http://forum.wordreference.com/thre...ine-politikerin-zeigen.2964778/#post-14995467


----------

