# Haben Sie ein Zimmer frei?



## close call

What does "Haben Sie ein Zimmer frei?" mean and shouldn't it be "Haben Sie ein freie Zimmer?"?


----------



## elroy

It means "Do you have any available rooms?"

"Haben Sie ein freie Zimmer?" 
"Haben Sie ein freies Zimmer?"


----------



## close call

Oh, okay.


----------



## berndf

close call said:


> What does "Haben Sie ein Zimmer frei?"


The logic of the sentence is:
_Do you have a room [that is] free._


----------



## close call

So "frei" is an adverb in "Haben Sie ein Zimmer frei?"?
I know that "allein" is an adverb in sentences like "Sie ist allein."


----------



## berndf

close call said:


> So "frei" is an adverb in "Haben Sie ein Zimmer frei?"?
> I know that "allein" is an adverb in sentences like "Sie ist allein."


There are two possible syntactic analyses: As an adverb or as a post-positioned attributive adjective. Only pre-positioned attributive adjectives as inflected. Post-positioned attributive adjective have become very rare in contemporary German but I nevertheless prefer that interpretation. It just makes more sense.

_Allein_ in _Sie ist allein_ is a predicative adjective and not an adverb.


----------



## Dan2

berndf said:


> The logic of the sentence is:
> _Do you have a room [that is] free._


Das kann doch nicht die ganze Geschichte sein.  Warum gilt diese Logik nicht für...
(zu einem Autohändler) "Haben Sie ein Auto rot?"
(zu einem Buchhändler) "Haben Sie ein Buch interessant?"

Ist es möglich, dass wir in "Haben Sie ein Zimmer frei" ein inoffizielles trennbares Verb "freihaben" haben?  (_Werden Sie ein Zimmer "freihaben"?  Gestern hat er ein Zimmer "freigehabt"._ _Es ist wichtig, mehrere Zimmer "freizuhaben"_.).  "freihaben" scheint bei Zimmern mehr Sinn zu ergeben, als "rothaben" bei Autos oder "interessanthaben" bei Büchern.


----------



## berndf

_Frei_ is certainly a restrictive attribute. However you analyse the sentence formally,


berndf said:


> The logic of the sentence is:
> _Do you have a room [that is] free._


holds true.

I have thought about the analysis as a separable verb when preparing my answer to #5 and decided against it. I can't think of a paradigm where separable prefix can serve as a restrictive attribute. There is an ostensible parallel in the sentences:
_Er hat ein Zimmer frei.
Er macht ein Zimmer frei._

But if you replace them with an equivalent form with a relative clause the similarity breaks down:
_Er hat ein Zimmer, das frei ist.
Es gibt/Er hat ein Zimmer, das er frei macht._
If it were a separable verb you couldn't spread it across clauses.

There are sentences where _frei haben_ is undoubtedly a separable Verb. E.g.:
_Er hat das Zimmer noch frei._
But here _frei_ is not restrictive and I don't understand this as the same verb.


----------



## Dan2

berndf said:


> However you analyse the sentence formally,
> 
> 
> 
> The logic of the sentence is:
> _Do you have a room [that is] free._
> 
> 
> 
> holds true.
Click to expand...

Then with regard to the sentence "Haben Sie ein interessantes Buch", with logical equivalent "Haben Sie ein Buch, das interessant ist"... Have you explained why "Haben Sie ein Buch interessant?" isn't possible?  I think one would expect it to be, if "frei" were simply an adjective in "Haben Sie ein Zimmer frei", and the sentence had logical form "Haben Sie ein Zimmer, das frei ist?".


----------



## berndf

No, I can't explain it. Maybe automatically frozen from a time when post-positioned attributive adjectives were still more frequent (18th century), possibly motivated by cases where it really serves as a separable verb. But that is just a surmise.


----------



## Kajjo

berndf said:


> But if you replace them with an equivalent form with a relative clause the similarity breaks down: _Er hat ein Zimmer, das frei ist._


I'd like to argue that these two sentences are not equivalent. I believe the following two are equivalent:

_Er hat ein Zimmer, das frei ist._
_= Er hat ein freies Zimmer.
_


berndf said:


> There are sentences where frei haben is undoubtedly a separable Verb. E.g.:
> _Er hat das Zimmer noch frei._


You really argue that "frei" is different in these sentences? I don't think so.

_Er hat das Zimmer (noch | wirklich | schon länger) frei._
_Er hat das Zimmer frei._


----------



## berndf

Kajjo said:


> _Er hat ein Zimmer, das frei ist.
> = Er hat ein freies Zimmer._


Yes. Both are equivalent to _Er hat ein Zimmer frei.

Er hat ein freies Zimmer.
Er hat ein Zimmer frei._
are freely interchangeable, certainly in the given context. If you don't think it is generally so, I would be interested to hear of a context where they wouldn't be.


----------



## Dan2

Kajjo said:


> I'd like to argue that these two sentences are not equivalent. I believe the following two are equivalent:
> _Er hat ein Zimmer, das frei ist.
> = Er hat ein freies Zimmer._





berndf said:


> Both are equivalent to _Er hat ein Zimmer frei._


I think I agree with Kajjo.  English is strikingly similar to German with respect to the concepts we've been discussing:

1. Do you have an available room? 
2. Do you have a room that's available? 
3. Do you have a room available? 
but
3a. Do you have a car red?  (Sounds like a bad translation from a Romance language.)

I'll make a claim with respect to the English sentences (to make it a bit harder for Bernd to disagree with me...), but I think it's valid also for the corresponding German sentences.

Although for practical purpose all three sentences would work in a need-a-room context, I find 1 and 2 logically equivalent (= Do you have a room, subject to the further condition that it be available?) while 3 is slightly different (= Do you have-available a-room? = [Is there availability] of [a room]?).  That is, in 3 I don't see "available" having an adjectival relationship with the noun "room" (unless, significantly, I force 3 to have the bad-translation-from-Romance interpretation that I mentioned with respect to 3a).


----------



## berndf

There is indeed a semantic difference between 1 & 2 on the one side and 3 on the other side: 3 presupposes the at least one room (available or not) exists while 1 & 2 don't. In the given context this difference is inconsequential because because we already knew before tat there are rooms,

3 is prima facie of the same type (I'm now switching now back to German examples; I agree with you that English isn't much different; so no argument necessary here) as
_Sie färbt ihre Haare rot.
Er stellt die Musik laut.
Er streicht die Wand gelb.
Er macht das Zimmer frei._

The academic literature calls these adjectives something like _prädikatives Attribut _or _prädikativ-attributives Adjektiv_ because it is part of the predicate but defines a property of the object and not of the subject as any regular predicative would do. But 
_Er hat ein Zimmer frei._
is different because this adjective is restrictive. Under the aforementioned conditions the two sentences
_Er hat ein freies Zimmer.
Er hat ein Zimmer frei._
can be used interchangeably, which would be inconceivable for the sentences
_Er streicht die gelbe Wand.
Er streicht die Wand gelb._
Those sentences mean completely different things.


----------



## close call

Thanks.


----------



## bearded

berndf said:


> but _Er hat ein Zimmer frei _is different because this adjective is restrictive.


Can you please explain that better?  I cannot find any syntactic difference between (e.g.) _er findet das Zimmer hübsch _and _er hat ein Zimmer frei._
In our grammar, we would call both 'hübsch' and 'frei'   predicative adjectives of the object - as they refer to the direct object (_aggettivi predicativi dell'oggetto_).


----------



## berndf

I find it difficult to see how a predicative can be restrictive. It sounds like a contradiction in terms to me. The most important consequence of this difference is what I said:


berndf said:


> Under the aforementioned conditions the two sentences
> _Er hat ein freies Zimmer.
> Er hat ein Zimmer frei._
> can be used interchangeably, which would be inconceivable for the sentences
> _Er streicht die gelbe Wand.
> Er streicht die Wand gelb._
> Those sentences mean completely different things.


----------



## bearded

Now (just for my understanding) does for you such a difference exist between ''_er hält eine Frau gefangen'' _and ''_er hat ein Zimmer frei''_?
Perhaps ''_er hält eine gefangene Frau'' _is possible... or not? Is 'gefangen' also restrictive?  Der Begriff 'restrictive' ist mir nicht ganz klar in diesem Zusammenhang.  Danke.


----------



## Kajjo

berndf said:


> I find it difficult to see how a predicative can be restrictive.


I agree with Bearded: Please define and explain the concept "restrictive". I don't understand this argument.



berndf said:


> part of the predicate but defines a property of the object and not of the subject as any regular predicative would do


Predicatives are regularly belonging to the subject or the object. Both are normal predicatives (canoonet - Satzglieder: Prädikat: Prädikative).



Kajjo said:


> You really argue that "frei" is different in these sentences? I don't think so.
> 
> _Er hat das Zimmer (noch | wirklich | schon länger) frei.
> Er hat das Zimmer frei._


Could you please reply to this argument?


----------



## berndf

Kajjo said:


> I agree with Bearded: Please define and explain the concept "restrictive". I don't understand this argument.


I am surprised you ask that. Just a short while ago we had a long discussion in restrictive and non-restrictive relations. Here is the definition I gave there:


berndf said:


> 1) ∀x∈S: R(x)
> 2) {x|x∈S & R(x)}
> 
> In 1) ist R(x) eine nicht-restriktive Relation, d.h. sie beschreibt Eigenschaft, die für alle Elemente von S gibt.
> In 2) ist R(x) eine restriktive Relation, d.h. sie definite eine Untermenge von S, nämlich all diejenigen x∈S, für die R(x) gilt.
> 
> Anders ausgedrückt, eine nicht-restriktive Relation stellt eine Behauptung über die Elemente einer Menge, während eine restriktive Relation keine Behauptung darstellt, sondern ein Definition einer Untermenge.





Kajjo said:


> Predicatives are regularly belonging to the subject or the object. Both are normal predicatives (canoonet - Satzglieder: Prädikat: Prädikative).


Whatever terminology you prefer. It doesn't really matter.


Kajjo said:


> Could you please reply to this argument?


I say there is a difference between
1) _Er hat das Zimmer frei._
and
2) _Er hat ein Zimmer frei._
... That is if you count 1) as an idiomatic German sentence. I personally wouldn't.


bearded said:


> Now (just for my understanding) does for you such a difference exist between ''_er hält eine Frau gefangen'' _and ''_er hat ein Zimmer frei''_?
> Perhaps ''_er hält eine gefangene Frau'' _is possible... or not? Is 'gefangen' also restrictive? Der Begriff 'restrictive' ist mir nicht ganz klar in diesem Zusammenhang. Danke


I understand _gefangen halten_ as a phrasal verb. The difference becomes apparent if you put it into a separate clause:
_Er hat ein Zimmer frei = Er hat eine Zimmer, das frei ist.
Es gibt eine Frau, die er gefangen hält._
You certainly cannot say *_Er hält eine gefangene Frau_ or if your could it would mean something completely different.


----------



## Kajjo

berndf said:


> Here is the definition I gave there:


And again, I see no relevance to apply that concept to this example.

_ein freies Zimmer
ein Zimmer frei haben_

What can be restrictive about it? I simply see no relevance.



berndf said:


> I say there is a difference between
> 1) _Er hat das Zimmer frei._
> and
> 2) _Er hat ein Zimmer frei._
> ... That is if you count 1) as an idiomatic German sentence. I personally wouldn't.


Well, with more context both are possible:

_Haben Sie noch das gleiche Zimmer frei, das wir letztes Jahr hatten?
Haben Sie denn im August noch ein Zimmer frei?
_
Do you believe that "ein/das" make a difference with regards to the grammatical analysis of "frei"?

I claim that "ein Zimmer frei haben" is a simple case of a predicative usage of "frei".

_Ist das Zimmer noch frei?
Ist noch ein Zimmer frei?
Haben Sie noch ein Zimmer frei?_


----------



## bearded

berndf said:


> _Er hat ein Zimmer frei = Er hat eine Zimmer, das frei ist.
> Es gibt eine Frau, die er gefangen hält._


Parallel wäre eigentlich  ''er hält eine Frau, die gefangen ist''.


----------



## elroy

@berndf, I, too, don't understand what you mean by "restrictive adjectives."


----------



## berndf

bearded said:


> Parallel wäre eigentlich  ''er hält eine Frau, die gefangen ist''.


Und das genau bedeutet _Er hält eine Frau gefangen _eben nicht.


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> @berndf, I, too, don't understand what you mean by "restrictive adjectives."


_Er hat ein Zimmer frei = Er hat ein freies Zimmer = Er hat ein Zimmer, das _[_=that, _not _which_]_ frei ist._


----------



## berndf

Kajjo said:


> And again, I see no relevance to apply that concept to this example.
> 
> _ein freies Zimmer
> ein Zimmer frei haben_
> 
> What can be restrictive about it? I simply see no relevance.


I somehow had an issue predicatives determining the object of set of objects the predication is about rather than describing a property of an independently identified object. But we have the same thing with the most ordinary subject predicates:
1)_ Der Ball ist rot._ (R(x))
2) _Ein Ball ist rot._ (∃x:R(X))

1) is a statement of propositional logic (R(x)) and 2) is an statement of first degree predicate logic (∃x:R(x)). Maybe this distinction is indeed not terribly relevant for a purely syntactic analysis as all predicatives can used in both types of statements.


----------



## close call

Thanks.


----------



## Perseas

bearded said:


> I cannot find any syntactic difference between (e.g.) _er findet das Zimmer hübsch _and _er hat ein Zimmer frei._


 Hello,

"hübsch" is definitely a predicative, which refers to the object "Zimmer". The same applies in my opinion to "Ich halte das Zimmer kühl", where "kühl" is a predicative too. On the other hand, I 'd say that "frei" may go after the noun, but to me it's still an attributive adjective. It forms a unit together with the noun (a noun phrase), as "freies Zimmer" does.
It's interesting that in EN-DE Pons dictionary "Zimmer frei" is translated as "vacancies", i.e. one word.


----------



## bearded

Perseas said:


> It forms a unit


If it were a unit, you couldn't separate the two members of it, i.e. a sentence like _Er sagte,er habe  ein Zimmer sofort frei _would be impossible.


----------

