# manipulate sb. into doing sth.



## valdur

Hello all,

I would like to figure out a good translation for the grammatical structure of

" I manipulated him into doing something."

the way I understand it is:

"ik heb hem gemanipuleerd, zodat hij iets deed"

or would it be "ik heb hem gemanipuleerd, om iets te doen"

which is correct?

thanks


----------



## Red Arrow

"Ik heb hem gemanipuleerd zodat hij iets zou doen."


----------



## valdur

Red Arrow :D said:


> "Ik heb hem gemanipuleerd zodat hij iets zou doen."


Great thank you so much !

Why do we use zou here? Is it because it's in the past tense ?

If so what if we changed it to "ik zal hem manipuleren" would it be then "zodat hij iets doet"

Can we never use the "om iets te doen" construction either ?


----------



## Red Arrow

(Please note that I am not a grammar expect, just a native speaker!)

Ik ga/zal hem manipuleren zodat hij iets voor mij zal doen.
Ik heb hem gemanipuleerd zodat hij iets voor mij zou doen.

You can also put 'voor mij' at the end:
Ik ga/zal hem manipuleren zodat hij iets zal doen voor mij.
Ik heb hem gemanipuleerd zodat hij iets zou doen voor mij.

I have read the "om iets te doen" construction so much that I can't really tell whether it sounds good or not. It certainly didn't sound good the first time I read it  For some reason it sounds a lot better with 'voor mij'.

Ik heb hem gemanipuleerd om dat voor mij te doen.


----------



## valdur

ok awesome !

thanks so much

last question to see if i understand: 

"ik heb hem gemanipuleerd, zodat hij zou gaan" - could i not also say "ik heb hem gemanipuleerd, zodat hij ging" ?


----------



## eno2

"ik heb hem gemanipuleerd, zodat hij iets deed"  That's surely OK if the manipulation was successful.  The English original (I manipulated him into doing something.") to me  sounds also like it was successful.


"ik heb hem gemanipuleerd, om iets te doen" Doesn't give a hint if he did something or not, it just renders your intention.


----------



## valdur

eno2 said:


> "ik heb hem gemanipuleerd, zodat hij iets deed"  That's surely OK if he manipulation was succesfull.  The English original (I manipulated him into doing something.") to me  sounds also like it was successful.
> 
> 
> "ik heb hem gemanipuleerd, om iets te doen" Doesn't give a hint if he did something or not, it just renders your intention.



thank you!

so does it change for the future tense? ik zal hem manipuleren, zodat hij iets _doet/ zal doen_


----------



## eno2

valdur said:


> thank you!
> 
> so does it change for the future tense? _/    ik zal hem manipuleren, zodat hij iets doet/ zal doen_



That's a bit more complicated. ik zal hem manipuleren, zodat hij iets _doet Also and perhaps better: Ik zal hem zodanig manipuleren, dat hij iets doet. 

 ik zal hem manipuleren, zodat hij iets *zal doen*

The future is already expressed in the first part, a repeat doesn't sound good at all. 


_


----------



## valdur

eno2 said:


> That's a bit more complicated. ik zal hem manipuleren, zodat hij iets _doet Also and perhaps better: Ik zal hem zodanig manipuleren, dat hij iets doet.
> 
> ik zal hem manipuleren, zodat hij iets *zal doen*
> 
> The future is already expressed in the first part, a repeat doesn't sound good at all.
> 
> _


thank you ! very interesting, i'm a little confused though because this goes directly against what your countryman said there above !


----------



## eno2

There's no prohibition on repeating futures. Ik zal hem vragen wat hij zal doen/zou doen, is OK. It's just that with ... 'zal manipuleren', 'zal doen'   doesn't sound that good  (in MY ears).

I'd rather say:

_Ik zal hem manipuleren, zodat hij iets *GAAT doen. 
*
GAAN  expresses a more direct future. Ik zal sterven (in the long run). Ik ga sterven: (My life is at an end): Here GAAT  expresses a fairly direct result in the future  of your manipulating him. Gaan is perhaps more used than ZULLEN, generally.  

Ik ga hem manipuleren, zodat hij iets doet. All OK. 
*


*_


----------



## valdur

Thank you!


----------



## Red Arrow

eno2 said:


> That's a bit more complicated. ik zal hem manipuleren, zodat hij iets _doet Also and perhaps better: Ik zal hem zodanig manipuleren, dat hij iets doet._





eno2 said:


> _Ik ga hem manipuleren, zodat hij iets doet. All OK._


Both of those sound a bit weird to me.


----------



## Red Arrow

valdur said:


> ok awesome !
> 
> thanks so much
> 
> last question to see if i understand:
> 
> "ik heb hem gemanipuleerd, zodat hij zou gaan" - could i not also say "ik heb hem gemanipuleerd, zodat hij ging" ?


Ik *had* hem gemanipuleerd zodat hij (naar daar) ging.


valdur said:


> thank you ! very interesting, i'm a little confused though because this goes directly against what your countryman said there above !


Yes, it does. To me, you first manipulate someone into doing something, and then the person does said action. If you omit the verb 'zullen', it looks like you will manipulate someone into doing something right before you started manipulating, which doesn't make any sense.

*These are all the combinations you can make as far as I know:*

Ik manipuleer hem zodat hij iets voor mij *zal/gaat* doen. (=> I am manipulating him into doing something for me in the (near) future.)
Ik* zal/ga* hem manipuleren zodat hij iets voor mij *zal/gaat* doen. (=> I will manipulate him into doing something for me.)
Ik heb hem gemanipuleerd zodat hij iets voor mij zou doen. (=> I (have) manipulated him into doing something for me.)
Ik heb hem gemanipuleerd zodat hij iets voor mij *zal/gaat* doen. (=> I (have) manipulated him into doing something for me in the (near) future.)
Ik had hem gemanipuleerd zodat hij iets voor mij deed. (=> I had manipulated him into doing something for me.)
Ik had hem gemanipuleerd zodat hij iets voor mij *zou/ging* doen. (=> I had manipulated him into doing something for me in the (near) future.)

You can also say 'manipuleerde' instead of 'heb gemanipuleerd'.
'heb gemanipuleerd' is said when the action is finished. (It is not exactly the same as 'have manipulated' in English. For example: Ik *heb* hem gisteren *gemanipuleerd*. = I manipulated him yesterday.)

I think that @eno2's only problem is that he doesn't like to repeat the verb 'zullen', which is totally fine. You can alternate between 'zullen' and 'gaan' if you want to.


----------



## Red Arrow

Bonus 

Ik* zou* hem manipuleren zodat hij iets voor mij *zou *doen. (=> I would manipulate him into doing something for.)
Ik *zou* hem gemanipuleerd hebben zodat hij iets voor mij* zou* doen. (=> I would have manipuled him into doing something for me.)
Ik *ging *hem manipuleren zodat hij iets voor mij *zou/ging* doen. (=> I was going to manipulate him into doing something for me.)


----------



## eno2

Red Arrow :D said:


> "Ik heb hem gemanipuleerd zodat hij iets zou doen."





The original sentence "" I manipulated him into doing something." could serve as a testimony or confession that  he did something because of my manipulation. The "Ik heb hem gemanipuleerd zodat hij iets zou doen"  because of it-s future, is not so clear about that,  it does not suggest positively he did something, it mainly expresses my intention.  

If I translated "I manipulated him into doing something." als "Ik bracht hem *ertoe *iets te doen", that would also be a good translation. No conditionals and no "zodat".

Into is *ertoe*. Letterlijk. Niet "zodat".


----------



## eno2

Ik *ging *hem manipuleren
This first GING expresses an intention  that wasn-t realised.

...zodat hij iets voor mij*  ging* doen.
That second GING expresses a future (zou gaan doen)

Now the combination past/future:
"Ik *ging *hem manipuleren zodat hij iets voor mij*  ging* doen."  This meaning of  "I PLANNED manipulating him" or "Ik was van plan hem te manipuleren zodat hij iets voor mij ZOU GAAN  doen" is unhappily redundant and very confusing.  Better omit the first GING in favour of "Ik was van plan"  or "Ik zou hem gaan manipuleren"

It's even more complicated. "Ik ging hem manipuleren" has a second meaning.

It means also: I BEGAN TO manipulate him! I STARTED manipulating him.

As I said before, with the future tenses it's all a bit more complicated. Zullen, gaan can both be used separately and  sometimes in combination for expressing future (tenses). GING is a past tense that can be used to initiate an action in the past as well as to express a botched intent.


----------



## Red Arrow

eno2 said:


> If I translated "I manipulated him into doing something." als "Ik bracht hem *ertoe *iets te doen", that would also be a good translation. No conditionals and no "zodat".
> 
> Into is *ertoe*. Letterlijk. Niet "zodat".


Agreed, but I think Valdur wants to find out how to use the word 'manipuleren'.


eno2 said:


> Ik *ging *hem manipuleren
> This first GING expresses an intention  that wasn-t realised.


An intention that hasn't been realised yet in the story you're telling.


eno2 said:


> Now the combination past/future:
> "Ik *ging *hem manipuleren zodat hij iets voor mij*  ging* doen."  This meaning of  "I PLANNED manipulating him" or "Ik was van plan hem te manipuleren zodat hij iets voor mij ZOU GAAN  doen" is unhappily redundant and very confusing.  Better omit the first GING in favour of "Ik was van plan"  or "Ik zou hem gaan manipuleren"
> 
> It's even more complicated. "Ik ging hem manipuleren" has a second meaning.
> 
> It means also: I BEGAN TO manipulate him! I STARTED manipulating him.
> 
> As I said before, with the future tenses it's all a bit more complicated. Zullen, gaan can both be used separately and  sometimes in combination for expressing future (tenses). GING is a past tense that can be used to initiate an action in the past as well as to express a botched intent.


I think you're making this a lot more difficult than it actually is. Everything gets confusing once you've overanalyzed it so much 
In this case there is only a slight difference between "I planned to" and "I was about to". I don't see the confusion.


----------



## ThomasK

Isn't another approach possible if we look for other verbs?

The whole point is about this *"V-ing into",* which seems to be possible with quite some verbs in English (even nagging, tempting). I quite agree that "*zodat*" is a good solution. In some cases as with "scare" we could solve the problem easily by using the "*zo [bang] maken dat* ..." variant.

If we have something like "coax into", then we can resort to the very traditional Dutch _*to*_* + inf. *construction like "dwingen te". We miss a similar "concise" construction for other verbs not taking this "te". English seems to be more flexible here.


----------

