# Sie sind fertig zum Mitbringen. (Mitbringen: verb->noun?)



## TongueTiedTom

I have a question regarding an instance of a verb becoming a noun.

I was discussing that I had some jumper cables (Überbrückungskabel) read to bring with me to help a friend, and I tried:

Sie sind fertig zu mitbringen.

However, he (a German native speaker) corrected me:

Sie sind fertig zum Mitbringen.

Explaining that Mitbringen was a noun in this sentence - in which case I follow the transition from zu to zum and the capitalisation. However, I don't really understand why it becomes a noun here.

If someone has a clear way to explain this, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Many thanks!


----------



## Bahiano

TongueTiedTom said:


> I have a question regarding an instance of a verb becoming a noun.
> 
> I was discussing that I had some jumper cables (Überbrückungskabel) read to bring with me to help a friend, and I tried:
> 
> Sie sind fertig zu mitbringen.
> 
> However, he (a German native speaker) corrected me:
> 
> Sie sind fertig zum Mitbringen.
> 
> Explaining that Mitbringen was a noun in this sentence - in which case I follow the transition from zu to zum and the capitalisation. However, I don't really understand why it becomes a noun here.
> 
> If someone has a clear way to explain this, I'd greatly appreciate it.
> 
> Many thanks!


Well, _zum_ is a merge of _zu_ + _dem_._ Dem_ is definite masculine article in dative case. Every word with an article is a noun (and vice versa: every noun has an article). In German every noun is capitalized.
Hope this helps...


----------



## Hutschi

We have one problem here. "Dem" is not masculine/male (männlich) but neuter (sächlich) in our case. The verb is transferred to the noun "das Mitbringen".  This is in dative: "dem Mitbringen".

This way "zu + dem -> zum" is correct, but it is not male.


----------



## TongueTiedTom

Thanks for the replies. 

My problem is more why it is a noun and not a verb. I can't get my head around it!


----------



## Hutschi

I try it.

Verb and noun are basically connected with doing/handling vs. things, respectively. 
But these are not grammatical categories, they are content.

We have another (pure grammatical) classification.  
 A verb is conjugated, a noun is declined. A verb is (in English) a part of a verb phrase and follows the subject. But it is not really true that every verb expresses a handling. For example: If I stay somewhere I am not really doing something.
And a noun can express handlings. The flow of the water. 

Compare: The flow of the water, flowing water, the water is flowing, the water flows. It is always similar in nature. But "the" makes a noun from "flow".

German is here similar to English. 

We can generate nouns from verbs:

_mitbringen -> das Mitbringen, der Mitbringende, das Mitgebrachte
gehen -> das Gehen, der Gehende
können -> das Können_

also_ fließen -> das Fließen, das Fließende, der Fluss_

If we use it with an article it is a noun, as Bahiano already explained.

But also without an article it may be a noun. this depends on the grammar function in the sentence.

In English you have a sentence like:
_
I go to the meeting._ "Meeting" is a noun here, although it looks like a verb. 

The languages are a little bit different in what they use as verb. But the general rule is: if it depends on an article it is a noun, independent on whether the article is compressed or not.


----------



## Syzygy

TongueTiedTom said:


> My problem is more why it is a noun and not a verb. I can't get my head around it!



I think the same thing happens in English, for example compare "ready to be taken" (verb) with "ready for the taking" (noun). It's just that in German the word "fertig" usually collocates with nouns, not verbs.


----------



## Robocop

TongueTiedTom said:


> My problem is more why it is a noun and not a verb. I can't get my head around it!


In actual fact, we call a verb that is used as a noun _"nominalized verb"_.


----------



## William Stein

German, like French, often uses nouns where an English-speaker would use a verb, maybe because Germans tend to avoid saying "you" (ánother way to avoid personal pronouns is to use the impersonal "man" or the passive voice). For example, tne German sentence "Das Mitbringen von Freunden is strengstens verboten" would tend to be translated with a "subject + verb" or "it + infinitive" or gerund:
You are not allowed to bring along friends.
or
It is strictly prohibited to bring along friends.
Bringing along friends is strictly prohibited. (this gerund is a sort of hybrid verb-noun, but it is more of a verb here, as shown by the fact that it sounds weird if you add the definite article: The bringing along of friends is prohibited.)


----------



## Hutschi

In German, you can say both _
Mitbringen von Freunden ist streng verboten.
Das Mitbringen von Freunden ist streng verboten._

In these cases "Mitbringen" is considered as noun.

But in _"Freunde mitbringen ist streng verboten."_ it remains a verb in infinitive.
another form is  _"Freunde mitzubringen ist streng verboten." _Here it is an infinitive with "zu".


----------



## Syzygy

William Stein said:


> German, like French, often uses nouns where an English-speaker would use a verb, maybe because Germans tend to avoid saying "you" (ánother way to avoid personal pronouns is to use the impersonal "man" or the passive voice).


I'm not sure I agree, can you give a couple more examples? I'd say in written and formal German you often use nouns instead of verbs to avoid having to name an explicit subject, clearly more so than in spoken language, but I wasn't aware of any intrinsic disparity between German and English in this regard.
On a side note: I don't think I've ever read or heard the words "Freunde" and "strengstens verboten" in the same sentence, they seem to me to be of different registers.


----------



## Hutschi

Here we need context. It seems to be either ironically, or a kind of joke. May be he or she wants to be alone with his or her friend, respectively.

Otherwise my father forbid me to bring friends with me into the flat when I was a child - in absence of the parents.


----------



## berndf

German and French indeed tend to use verbal nouns just for the sake of it. It is often done in an attempt to make a sentence sound higher register or very technical. E.g.:
En: _The text was changed._
De: _An dem Text wurde eine Änderung vorgenommen._
Fr:_ Un changement du texte fut effectué.
_
But I think this case is different. The use of the infinitive as an abstract noun simplifies the sentence because you would otherwise have to use the passive infinitive which is perceived as combersome:
_Sie sind fertig mitgenommen zu werden._


----------



## Gernot Back

TongueTiedTom said:


> However, he (a German native speaker) corrected me:
> 
> Sie sind fertig zum Mitbringen.
> 
> Explaining that Mitbringen was a noun in this sentence - in which case I follow the transition from zu to zum and the capitalisation. However, I don't really understand why it becomes a noun here.



Actually native speakers of German have a similar problem with English in the verb _"to look forward to sth."_

In German we would say _"Ich freue mich dich zu sehen"_. (connecting the reflexive verb _"sich freuen" _with an infinitive clause (a verb); in English you use _"to look forward to"_ with a gerund (a deverbal noun/the nominalisation of a verb).


----------



## Syzygy

I still don't see the distinction with English, which I think uses nominalizations just as much in some written registers. Why wouldn't you have the German and French examples correspond to "The text has undergone changes." or "Changes were made to the text."?
As to spoken language I always thought German nominalized verbs, be it with or without article, were used just like their English counterparts with -ing.
I'm also not that sure that "fertig" can be used as is with verbs. Maybe it's just me, but I'd probably expand to something like "soweit fertig, dass sie mitgenommen werden können" or "fertig, um mitgenommen zu werden".


----------



## William Stein

For example:
Das Beibringen von mehrfachen Beilspielen wäre gewünscht?
That may be a normal German sentence but the word-for-word English translation is extremely akward and uncommon in any register, even the most bureaucratic:
*The provision of multiple examples is desirable.
*Providing multiple examples is desirable.
*The providing of multiple examples would be desirable.
Any native speaker would tend to say (from more to less frequently):
Can you please give lots of examples?
You should give lots examples.
It would be good to give many examples.

As to "Freund" and "strengstens verboten" being in different registers, I don't agree at all. They're both Hochdeutsch (the fact that "Freund" is related to the word "freundlich" does not change the register). If I had said:
"*Das Mitbringen von Kumpeln (colloquial)) is strengstens verboten (bureaucratic)"
then there would indeed be a difference in register, although that would be irrelevant to the question of nominalization in any case.


----------



## Syzygy

Sorry William, I think I misused the word 'register'. What I meant to say was, that "Freund" is emotionally charged (even if only mildly), and that's why I think it would usually be replaced by for example "Begleitperson" in a neutral statement of prohibition.
And I think the English "to give an example" and the German "ein Beispiel geben/nennen" are used in about the same manner and frequency.
But if you count "Das Nennen von Beispielen" as a noun and "Giving examples" as a verb form, I agree with you.
I also admit that I haven't read many English texts of formal/bureaucratic writing and therefore can't be too sure about exact frequencies of occurrence.


----------



## berndf

Syzygy said:


> I still don't see the distinction with English, which I think uses nominalizations just as much in some written registers. Why wouldn't you have the German and French examples correspond to "The text has undergone changes." or "Changes were made to the text."?


You wouldn't replace _the text was changed_ by_ the text underwent changes_ unless you wanted to give it a slightly different meaning. The latter translates into German as _der Text wurde Änderungen unterworfen_ which doesn't quite mean the same thing as _an dem Text wurden Änderungen vorgenommen_.

In other words: You do not nominalize verbs in English just for reason of style or register unless you want it to sound bureaucratic und clumsy, as William explained.


----------



## Gernot Back

TongueTiedTom said:


> I had some jumper cables (Überbrückungskabel) read to bring with me to help a friend, and I tried:
> 
> Sie sind fertig zu mitbringen.
> 
> However, he (a German native speaker) corrected me:
> 
> Sie sind fertig zum Mitbringen.


I think what you actually wanted to say was neither:

Honestly: would jumper cables really have *to get ready* first for being brought along by you? Would you really have to mount them * before* bringing them  to the location where they are needed?

I suppose you wanted to say:

_Ich kann dir Überbrückungskabel bereitstellen._
or
_Ich kann dir Überbrückungskabel zur Verfügung stellen._

"Fertig" doesn't sound idiomatic all in this context.


----------



## Demiurg

Gernot Back said:


> "Fertig" doesn't sound idiomatic all in this context.


Ich hätte auf "griffbereit" getippt, was aber nichts an der Nominalisierung des nachfolgenden Verbs ändert.


----------



## Dan2

TongueTiedTom said:


> I was discussing that I had some jumper cables (Überbrückungskabel) ready to bring with me to help a friend, and I tried:
> 
> Sie sind fertig zu mitbringen.
> 
> However, he (a German native speaker) corrected me:...


I think some of the confusion here arises from the fact that in English one can say both...

1. The man is ready to eat. (Logically, the man is ready for [the man eats].)
and
2. The pie is ready to eat. (Logically, the pie is ready for [one eats the pie].)

That is, the _grammatical_ subject of "is ready to verb" can be the _logical _subject _or _object of "verb".
(And thus, in the appropriate context, sentence (1) is actually fully ambiguous...)


----------



## Demiurg

Dan2 said:


> I think some of the confusion here arises from the fact that in English one can say both...
> ...
> 2. The pie is ready to eat. (Logically, the pie is ready for [one eats the pie].



Das geht im Deutschen auch:

_The Kuchen ist fertig zum Essen._ (umgangssprachlich)

_The Kuchen ist bereit zum Verzehr._ (gehoben)


----------



## Hutschi

As we see with the "pie" example, there is also non-bureaucratic usage of nouns made of verbs.


----------



## berndf

Dan2 said:


> I think some of the confusion here arises from the fact that in English one can say both...
> 
> 1. The man is ready to eat. (Logically, the man is ready for [the man eats].)
> and
> 2. The pie is ready to eat. (Logically, the pie is ready for [one eats the pie].)


Quite right. In German you have to use the passive infinitive in #2: _Der Kuchen ist bereit gegessen zu werden._



Demiurg said:


> Das geht im Deutschen auch:
> 
> _The Kuchen ist fertig zum Essen._ (umgangssprachlich)
> 
> _The Kuchen ist bereit zum Verzehr._ (gehoben)


Eben nicht. Der Invinitiv muss substantiviert werden, sonst ist der Passivinfinitiv Pflicht.

_*Der Kuchen ist fertig zu essen_ wäre falsch; und um den Unterschied zwischen _zu essen_ und _zum Essen_ geht es ja gerade in diesem Thread.


----------



## Demiurg

berndf said:


> In German you have to use the passive infinitive in #2: _Der Kuchen ist bereit gegessen zu werden._
> ...
> _*Der Kuchen ist fertig zu essen_ wäre falsch; und um den Unterschied zwischen _zu essen_ und _zum Essen_ geht es ja gerade in diesem Thread.


Ich dachte es geht um (übertriebene) Nominalisierungen im Deutschen, aber jetzt verstehe ich, worauf du hinaus willst. 

Nachtrag:
Zu Dans Beispiel habe ich hier noch was gefunden: “Ready to [verb]” - implicit passive
Die Konstruktion funktioniert auch im Englischen nicht immer.


----------



## berndf

Demiurg said:


> Ich dachte es geht um (übertriebene) Nominalisierungen im Deutschen, aber jetzt verstehe ich, worauf du hinaus willst.


Prima.


----------



## TongueTiedTom

Thanks very much for the advice/discussion. Although I am left a bit confused about any exact rule for this; I think it will become clearer with practice. For now I'll just accept that fertig nominalises the following verb and hope that is enough. 

On another note, I think the demo sentence:

The cake is ready to be eaten.
Der Kuchen ist bereit gegessen zu werden.

Helps me understand that construct in German, which solves another mystery! 



Gernot Back said:


> Would you really have to mount them * before* bringing them  to the location where they are needed?
> 
> I suppose you wanted to say:
> 
> _Ich kann dir Überbrückungskabel bereitstellen._
> or
> _Ich kann dir Überbrückungskabel zur Verfügung stellen._



Following a discussion last night with 3 German friends, they also said the sentence itself was odd in German, but in English the sentences:

I can bring the cables. OR I will bring the cables.
AND
I have the cables ready to bring.

Have a slightly different meaning. The second sentence, and the one I was aiming for, means I have had to do something to the cables to prepare them; in this case I had taken them from a cupboard and put them by the door. The former sentence just means I will bring them, but doesn't imply I have already prepared them. My German friends thought it was very inefficient to try and transmit this apparently redundant information!


----------



## Hutschi

Ich kann dir die Kabel mitbringen. (Vorschlag oder Mitteilung, sass es möglich ist.
Ich werden dir die Kabel mitbringen. (Mitteilung, dass ich die Kabel mitbringen werde, wenn nichts Außergewöhnliches dazwischen kommt. - Aussagen über die Zukunft haben immer Unsicherheit.)

Ich habe die Kabel zum Mitbringen fertig. - besser: Ich habe die Kabel fertig, um sie mitbringen zu können. - (Sie sind fertig, und ich kann oder werde sie mitbringen. Das ist hier nicht unterschieden. Meist bedeutet es aber, dass ich sie auch mitbringen werde, aber noch nicht genau weiß, wann.)


----------



## Demiurg

TongueTiedTom said:


> The second sentence, and the one I was aiming for, means I have had to do something to the cables to prepare them; in this case I had taken them from a cupboard and put them by the door.


My first guess was "griffbereit" but I think "bereitgelegt" fits better here. So by adopting Hutschi's proposals we get:

_Ich habe die Kabel zum Mitbringen bereitgelegt.
Ich habe die Kabel bereitgelegt, um sie mitbringen zu können._


----------



## Robocop

TongueTiedTom said:


> I had some jumper cables ready to bring with me ...


Ich hatte einige/ein paar Überbrückungskabel zum Mitnehmen/Mitbringen (je nach "Standort") vorbereitet/bereitgelegt/bereitgemacht ...


----------



## Hutschi

Robocop said:


> Ich hatte einige/ein paar Überbrückungskabel zum Mitnehmen/Mitbringen (je nach "Standort") vorbereitet/bereitgelegt/bereitgemacht ...


 
What do you want to express with this (with "hatte") and when do you say it? In case you have forgotten them there?


----------

