# The separable verb prefix in German



## bloodline

I have noticed that we have some very knowledgeable people on this forum regarding the history of the German Language. My question is obvious, what is the origin of the separable verb prefix?

Many thanks!


----------



## Hutschi

I found an article describing it in German language in Detail. 

Verbalklammer und Trennbarkeit. Beitrag zur semantischen Begründung der Klammerfähigkeit bei den trennbaren Verbbildungen 
Javier DÍAZ ALONSO

http://www.ucm.es/BUCM/revistas/fll/11330406/articulos/RFAL0707110141A.PDF

German is a language which uses verbal brackets (Verbalklammern).

Examble: Ich *bin* gestern im Kino *gewesen*.
Also the separable verbs are building such brackets.

Ich *nahm* ihn ins Kino *mit*.

This is a typical structure.

In many cases, the praticle was not part of the verb in the beginning.
Is was an adverb or a kind of preposition.

During a long process, some of the verbs became connected but separable, and some became connected but non-separable.

The separable verbs can build such verbal brackets. The non-separable cannot.

As far as I see, in separable verbs the meaning of the parts is clear. (I do not know whether there are exceptions.)

But the whole may have another meaning than if the verbs are separated.

The reform of orthography removed some of the markers and changed the meaning of writing the parts together or not in the first place. 

It is more complicate now to understand the meaning of a verb. 2006 parts of the reform were changed on this area again.

Until 1996:
Example: sitzenbleiben - it means the pupil has to repeat the year in the school.
You can separate it:
Der Schüler bleibt nach diesem Schuljahr sitzen. 
You understand each part, but the whole word has another meaning, you usually cannot derive from the parts.

Compare:
Sitzen bleiben - 
this is no separable verb, because it is separated from the beginning. It means literally what it says. You stay sitting.

1996
The reform removed this difference partly. After a lot of protests 2006 there was a kind of reform of the reform.
2006
The result was: Depending on the intonation you can write it together. In many cases the intonation corresponds to the former difference.

To be separable, a verb has to be written together. So the reform of 1996 removed a lot of separable verbs by separating them completely.

---
If I see it right:
The origin where verbs and particles giving additional hints to the verb.
If they were often used together, they were connected, but stayed separable.

There is another question: what is the origin of the non-separable connected verbs?


----------



## bloodline

First, many thanks for your response, and apologies for posing in the wrong forum.



Hutschi said:


> I found an article describing it in German language in Detail.
> 
> Verbalklammer und Trennbarkeit. Beitrag zur semantischen Begründung der Klammerfähigkeit bei den trennbaren Verbbildungen
> Javier DÍAZ ALONSO


 
Alas, this document is in German and thus difficult for me to read. But I will try, so thank you for finding it for me!



> German is a language which uses verbal brackets (Verbalklammern).
> 
> Examble: Ich *bin* gestern im Kino *gewesen*.
> Also the separable verbs are building such brackets.
> 
> Ich *nahm* ihn ins Kino *mit*.
> 
> This is a typical structure.


Indeed, for some reason unknown to me, I have not found the concept of the separable prefix particularly difficult to pick up... Though, while listening to spoken German, it does sometimes come as a surprise when I hear the separable prefix at the end and the meaning of the sentence suddenly changes for me. 

Far more difficult is the very rigid word order that German seems to require, which I don't have a problem reading, it does make it difficult to get the order correct when speaking. My English mind is rather set to the idea that word order is used to offer context.

My curiosity arises from fact that the separable prefix seems, at least from my perspective, a very redundant concept... Serving only to increase the likelihood of error in the transmission of information, between parties. I was hoping that there may have been at one time a historical advantage to such a grammatical feature. I would add, so as not to cause offence, I do rather like it as a "poetic" concept, it does give the language a very pleasing aesthetic quality.




> In many cases, the praticle was not part of the verb in the beginning.
> Is was an adverb or a kind of preposition.
> 
> During a long process, some of the verbs became connected but separable, and some became connected but non-separable.
> 
> The separable verbs can build such verbal brackets. The non-separable cannot.


I had assumed, that it was originally a preposition. All Germanic languages favour compounding, so this compounding is not a difficult concept for me to understand. The question still remains as to why it separates. 
Some prefixes are still obvious to us now... if we take the "un" prefix, which essentially negates the word it attaches to.

Romantic --> Unromantic





> As far as I see, in separable verbs the meaning of the parts is clear. (I do not know whether there are exceptions.)
> 
> But the whole may have another meaning than if the verbs are separated.


Now this does make sense, but I would note that the prefixes that do and do not separate are specific. This implies that it is a property of the prefix itself that has determined the nature of the prefix... Since I did not grow up with German, the subtle meanings of the prefixes are lost upon me, so I expect I am missing some important information. It is this worry, that has prompted the question in the first place. 



> The reform of orthography removed some of the markers and changed the meaning of writing the parts together or not in the first place.
> 
> It is more complicate now to understand the meaning of a verb. 2006 parts of the reform were changed on this area again.


The orthography reformations are unknown to me. I fear I may have fair amount of reading ahead of me, regarding this topic?



> Until 1996:
> Example: sitzenbleiben - it means the pupil has to repeat the year in the school.
> You can separate it:
> Der Schüler bleibt nach diesem Schuljahr sitzen.
> You understand each part, but the whole word has another meaning, you usually cannot derive from the parts.


A very good example, of my initial problem! 



> Compare:
> Sitzen bleiben -
> this is no separable verb, because it is separated from the beginning. It means literally what it says. You stay sitting.
> 
> 1996
> The reform removed this difference partly. After a lot of protests 2006 there was a kind of reform of the reform.
> 2006
> The result was: Depending on the intonation you can write it together. In many cases the intonation corresponds to the former difference.
> 
> To be separable, a verb has to be written together. So the reform of 1996 removed a lot of separable verbs by separating them completely.


I'm not sure if I completely understand.

To help understand a problem such as these, I often to for places in English that have a similar (often archaic/idiomatic) structure. 

But this is difficult:

To be upstanding.
To stand up.

Mean totally different things in English... I will just have to accept this as totally alien concept 



> ---
> If I see it right:
> The origin where verbs and particles giving additional hints to the verb.
> If they were often used together, they were connected, but stayed separable.
> 
> There is another question: what is the origin of the non-separable connected verbs?


I'm not sure that is such an interesting or complex question... If we take the word "Understand", it is a compound of two words much like "Verstehen". But the two words only have that specific meaning when fused. We can compare it with my romantic/unromantic example, previously, where the prefix has a very specific function.

I apologise for the fractured nature of my thoughts, I don't have the time I would like to think about this, and welcome your help!

Just a quick post about verbal brackets... Unfortunately I am unable to post URL's as my post count is too low... but I have just read an interesting paper on the subject that references "Grundgedanken der deutschen satzlehre" by Erich Drach (Drach, 1963). I might be the only person interested in this topic, but if not then I recommend a google search.
[Moderator's note: Bloodline provided the url by pm, I just added it.]

German is such a fascinating subject, I wish I had had the opportunity to study it when I was younger. :-(


----------



## Hutschi

l





bloodline said:


> ...
> Far more difficult is the very rigid word order that German seems to require, which I don't have a problem reading, it does make it difficult to get the order correct when speaking. My English mind is rather set to the idea that word order is used to offer context.


 
For me it seemed that the English word order is rigid. So we see, that rigidness is "pov" (point of view) (in Wikipedia terms)



> My curiosity arises from fact that the separable prefix seems, at least from my perspective, a very redundant concept...


For me it seems to be not very redundant. It gives indeed information - for example, the separable verb part indicates the end of a sentence. (This concept is rather new, in Luther's bible, such parts were not at the end - at least in many cases -  and in some dialects they are not at present time. 

The concept of rigidnes of the verb helps to make the most of the other phrases movable.



> Serving only to increase the likelihood of error in the transmission of information, between parties.


 
I do not think so. It avoids misunderstandings. It is like in a programming language. Some of the syntactical structures make clear what it is.

In English, in questions, you have a similar concept: Where *do* you *go* *to*?
"To" is moved to the end. It indicates the end of the question. You could say "Where to do you go?" Would this be right?

I was hoping that there may have been at one time a historical advantage to such a grammatical feature. I would add, so as not to cause offence, I do rather like it as a "poetic" concept, it does give the language a very pleasing aesthetic quality.

I'm sure, it has an advantage. But it is not completed. 




> I had assumed, that it was originally a preposition. All Germanic languages favour compounding, so this compounding is not a difficult concept for me to understand. The question still remains as to why it separates.
> Some prefixes are still obvious to us now... if we take the "un" prefix, which essentially negates the word it attaches to.


For me the contrary is the question: Why do some words not separate?





> Now this does make sense, but I would note that the prefixes that do and do not separate are specific. This implies that it is a property of the prefix itself that has determined the nature of the prefix... Since I did not grow up with German, the subtle meanings of the prefixes are lost upon me, so I expect I am missing some important information. It is this worry, that has prompted the question in the first place.


Especially prefixes whith no separate meaning and grammatical prefixes do not separate. I do not know exactly whether the separatet in the past.
Example:
Bearbeiten ("be" has no meaning on its own), gearbeitet ("ge" is a grammatical prefix)

In some cases "nonseparable verbs" are separated by joke:

"Missverstehen": Bitte missverstehe mich nicht. Joke: "Bitte verstehe mich nicht miss."



> The orthography reformations are unknown to me. I fear I may have fair amount of reading ahead of me, regarding this topic?


 
For me it was a kind of collaps. It made it easier to write but more complicate to understand the written words.



> I apologise for the fractured nature of my thoughts, I don't have the time I would like to think about this, and welcome your help!


 
Don't worry. This is no problem.
For me sometimes it is a problem that I bring German concepts into the English language ...  



> Just a quick post about verbal brackets... Unfortunately I am unable to post URL's as my post count is too low... but I have just read an interesting paper on the subject that references "Grundgedanken der deutschen satzlehre" by Erich Drach (Drach, 1963). I might be the only person interested in this topic, but if not then I recommend a google search.
> [Moderator's note: Bloodline provided the url by pm, I just added it.]
> 
> German is such a fascinating subject, I wish I had had the opportunity to study it when I was younger.


Thank you.


----------



## Hutschi

I found an English article may be interesting for you:
http://www3.unine.ch/webdav/site/andrew.mcintyre/shared/mcintyre/v2compound.verb.pdf

*Verb-Second and Backformations and Scalar Prefix Verbs in German:*
*The Interaction between Morphology, Syntax and Phonology*
* *​


----------



## berndf

bloodline said:


> Indeed, for some reason unknown to me, I have not found the concept of the separable prefix particularly difficult to pick up... Though, while listening to spoken German, it does sometimes come as a surprise when I hear the separable prefix at the end and the meaning of the sentence suddenly changes for me.


 
Maybe because the logic of a verbal bracket exists in English as well:
_I *picked* them *up.*_
_Ich* sammelte *sie* auf.*_

In English this has survived only if the object is a pronoun. If you replace _them_ by _the apples_ it becomes:
_I *picked up* the apples._
While in German you continue to say:
_Ich* sammelte *die Äpfel* auf.*_

Hence, in English the complexity has been reduced by restricting the concept to the simplest of cases but the basic logic is still there in English.


----------



## bloodline

Hutschi said:


> For me it seemed that the English word order is rigid. So we see, that rigidness is "pov" (point of view) (in Wikipedia terms)


 
Sorry, by rigid I mean that German does not alter the word order to offer context. Since German uses noun cases and agreement infection to provide that contextual information. Therefore German word order tends to be more static (probably a much better word in this context than rigid), or at least from what I have seen.



> "My curiosity arises from fact that the separable prefix seems, at least from my perspective, a very redundant concept..."
> 
> For me it seems to be not very redundant. It gives indeed information - for example, the separable verb part indicates the end of a sentence. (This concept is rather new, in Luther's bible, such parts were not at the end and in some dialects they are not at present time.


 
In interesting idea! But if it were useful, it would surely be applied to all verbs? Perhaps all verbs should have a separable prefix? 

My first thought, upon reading about the separable prefix, was that I couldn't see how detaching the prefix offered any extra information. Why not leave it attached?  

Are you saying that the separable prefix is a "new" concept? I am really interested to know the history of this grammatical feature!  



> The concept of rigidnes of the verb helps to make the most of the other phrases movable.


 
Yes, I should point out, that I am in no way criticizing the German language. Quite the opposite, I am hoping to gain a greater insight into the mechanics of the language!  



> "Serving only to increase the likelihood of error in the transmission of information, between parties. "
> 
> I do not think so. It avoids misunderstandings. It is like in a programming language. Some of the syntactical structures make clear what it is.


 
But if the prefix were to remain attached to the verb, then there is less chance of error. Though if we were to use the computer protocol paradigm, then one would require a terminating "word"... for example, in a conditional block... IF - Endif.



> In English, in questions, you have a similar concept: Where *do* you *go* *to*?
> "To" is moved to the end. It indicates the end of the question. You could say "Where to do you go?" Would this be right?


 
Strictly speaking I would say the "to" is actually redundant... Though I understand your point. If think your example is a little clearer if we use the past tense (since I would say in the present tense: Where are you going? (preferred) or Where are you going to?).

"Where did you go to" certainly sounds better than "Where to did you go"  Again I would consider including the "to" inelegant. 

But I digress... your example is a good one! Are you able to think of more, I find them very helpful? 



> "I was hoping that there may have been at one time a historical advantage to such a grammatical feature. I would add, so as not to cause offence, I do rather like it as a "poetic" concept, it does give the language a very pleasing aesthetic quality."
> 
> I'm sure, it has an advantage. But it is not completed.
> 
> "I had assumed, that it was originally a preposition. All Germanic languages favour compounding, so this compounding is not a difficult concept for me to understand. The question still remains as to why it separates.
> Some prefixes are still obvious to us now... if we take the "un" prefix, which essentially negates the word it attaches to. "
> 
> For me the contrary is the question: Why do some words not separate?


 
If the verb is formed with an existing verb and a preposition, then by definition I would expect the preposition to remain in the "pre (vor) position"... A compound noun or verb only has meaning in its compound, separating them could (though obviously doesn't, since 100million German speakers are more than happy with the arrangement) lead to misunderstanding...



> "Now this does make sense, but I would note that the prefixes that do and do not separate are specific. This implies that it is a property of the prefix itself that has determined the nature of the prefix... Since I did not grow up with German, the subtle meanings of the prefixes are lost upon me, so I expect I am missing some important information. It is this worry, that has prompted the question in the first place. "
> 
> 
> Especially prefixes whith no separate meaning and grammatical prefixes do not separate. I do not know exactly whether the separatet in the past.
> Example:
> Bearbeiten ("be" has no meaning on its own), gearbeitet ("ge" is a grammatical prefix)
> 
> In some cases "nonseparable verbs" are separated by joke:
> 
> "Missverstehen": Bitte missverstehe mich nicht. Joke: "Bitte verstehe mich nicht miss."


 
:-D

The "beauty" of the double negative!



> For me it was a kind of collaps. It made it easier to write but more complicate to understand the written words.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry. This is no problem.
> For me sometimes it is a problem that I bring German concepts into the English language ...


 
Unfortunately, almost all of my German friends speak English much too well... but occasionally they will use an unusual choice of words and sentence structure which often sounds rather poetic, and very pleasing! 



> Thank you.


 
You have provided me with a great deal of information! And, this is a very interesting discussion!

-Edit- Thank you for the link to the *Verb-Second and Backformations and Scalar Prefix Verbs in German*
** 
I shall read it this evening.


----------



## berndf

bloodline said:


> Sorry, by rigid I mean that German does not alter the word order to offer context. Since German uses noun cases and agreement infection to provide that contextual information. Therefore German word order tends to be more static (probably a much better word in this context than rigid), or at least from what I have seen.


 
I should say German applies certain syntactic structures more stringently while English reverts to simpler structures as soon as a construct becomes complicated.



> "Where did you go to" certainly sounds better than "Where to did you go"  Again I would consider including the "to" inelegant.
> 
> But I digress... your example is a good one! Are you able to think of more, I find them very helpful?


 
This moving prepositions to the end is different story. I remember having read its origin is Old Norse and has nothing to do with the common Western Germanic heritage of German and English and cerntainly not with separable verbs. A more relevant example would be the one I gave in my earlier post.


----------



## bloodline

berndf said:


> Maybe because the logic of a verbal bracket exists in English as well:
> _I *picked* them *up.*_
> _Ich* sammelte *sie* auf.*_


 
In my second post I noted that English has some vestigial verb bracketing. But the interesting part is that Uppick is not the infinitive verb. 

I think it is becoming clear to me now, as to the reason for this separable prefixing... It seems to be solving a few grammatical problems with a single perhaps complex solution.

1. The separation allows the maintaining verbal brackets.
2. The prefixing keeps the two parts of the verbal brackets together in in situations when verbal brackets are not in use.




> In English this has survived only if the object is a pronoun. If you replace _them_ by _the apples_ it becomes:
> _I *picked up* the apples._
> While in German you continue to say:
> _Ich* sammelte *die Äpfel* auf.*_
> 
> Hence, in English the complexity has been reduced by restricting the concept to the simplest of cases but the basic logic is still there in English.


 
This is a rather clear example:

I picked the apple - specifically means taking the apple from the tree.
I picked the apple up - means that the apple was placed somewhere (table/ground).

I picked the book - means choosing the book from many.
I picked the book up - means that the book was placed somewhere (table/ground).

Your choice of the verb "pick" was clever since the meaning is subtly altered with the addition of "up"... I had not noticed it before, but the verbs "To Pick" (to select) and "To Pick Up" (to collect) are very different in meaning.

Hutschi pointed out, and you have confirmed, that the separable prefix is actually a manifestation of the verbal bracket... I will need to do more reading but the English/German examples both of you have provided, do give me a clear insight into to logic by which it operates!


----------



## berndf

bloodline said:


> I will need to do more reading but the English/German examples both of you have provided, do give me a clear insight into to logic by which it operates!


One is always glad to be of service.


----------



## Hutschi

At your service, too.
And have a good afternoon.

And indeed: "pick up" is a good example.

In German the meaning changes, too. 

Ich sammelte die Äpfel (collected apples)
Ich sammelte die Äpfel auf (picked them up).

In some cases there is at least in the coll. language no clear rule hwther a verb is separated or not:

1) Ich saugte Staub. 2) Ich habe Staub gesaugt. 3) Ich habe staubgesaugt. 4) Ich staubsaugte. (The example shows an interesting effect: "Staub" is an object in the first sentence.)
Usually, you do not hear a difference between 2) and 3). So it may be reinterpreted.




> In interesting idea! But if it were useful, it would surely be applied to all verbs? Perhaps all verbs should have a separable prefix?


 
I'm afraid they do not and they will not 



> My first thought, upon reading about the separable prefix, was that I couldn't see how detaching the prefix offered any extra information. Why not leave it attached?


 
In some cases, it clarifies homonymes. (As mentioned in the case of "sitzenbleiben" and "sitzen bleiben".)

In many cases, the particle is not separable. 
And language is no mathematics.
As Shaw mentioned: In English you could write: "Ghoti" and it would sound like "fish". (gh like in "enough, o like in "women" and ti like in "nation".)


----------



## bloodline

*[Off topic part in response to deleted posts snipped
Frank
Moderator EHL]*

Bracketing within sentences is very peculiar. I suspect this is why separable prefixes stood out for me.

My indoctrinated mind expects all the verbs of a sentence to be grouped together after the subject. Early in my German experience I found myself looking first at the modal auxiliary and then at the end of a sentence, before reading the words in between, in order to parse the German phrase... I have now managed to become accustomed to the simple verb bracket:

"Ich möchte einen Kaffee trinken.", I can now anticipate the ending verb, in the same way a separable verb prefix can be anticipated (my vocabulary withstanding). What I now find conceptually difficult is the double infinitive:

"Ich habe einen Kaffee trinken wollen.", the terminating verb here seems unconnected to the sentence. I find this become increasingly difficult when we move to a second order sentence:

"... Weil ich einen Kaffee trinken wollen habe." (I hope this makes sense, please correct my mistakes). Now, not only do the verbs seem unconnected to the sentence, but they are also in the "wrong" order and I have no idea where to put a separable prefix, if ever such a sentence would need a rule governing this situation!   
 
Sorry for going on for so long, but I am really keen to expand my knowledge of this subject.

I think, perhaps, I should rename this thread topic to include bracketing, since separable prefixes are a subset of that larger, very interesting topic.


----------



## berndf

There are certainly different mechanisms behind the word order issues you raised than bracketing. I think we should leave this thread as it is and I am looking forward to new interesting threads on the broader issue of word order in German, English and maybe other languages.


----------



## german girl

Hi Hutschi!
German is a language which uses verbal brackets (Verbalklammern). What do you mean by verbal brackets. The word bracket? Parenthesis/Squares
 I don't understand. 
german girl


----------



## berndf

Avec un "trennbares Verb" on sépare les préfixe et la racine dans les formes finites et on met le préfixe tout à la fin de la phrase. Comme ça, les deux fragment du verbe forment une sort de "crochet"  ou "parenthèses" (le mot _Klammer _signifie les deux) autour des complément. E.g.: Verbe = _ankommen_:
_Er *kam* um 19:00 in Paris *an*._
C'était comme si en français on déchirait "arriver" en "à" et "river" (_arriver _vient du latin _ad ripam = à la rive_) et on disait
_*Il *riva* à 19h à Paris *à*._
au lieu de 
_Il *arriva* à 19h à Paris.

_Pareillement on sépare le verbe auxiliaire du verbe principale dans les formes composées:
_Er *ist* um 19:00 in Paris *angekommen*.
_C'était comme ça en français:
_*Il *est* à 19h à Paris *arrivé*.
_au lieu de
_Il *est*__* arrivé*__ à 19h à Paris.
_


----------



## Hutschi

In the German language you can find basically two types of verb brackets. (Verbal brackets?)

1. A verb may be separable.
In this case the separable particle of the verb can build a bracket, especially in a main clause.
The finite (conjugated) verb is at the second place. The particle is at the end. Except the first phrase all other phrases are in the middle of the verb bracket.
Example:
Ich *schreibe *den gesamten Text *ab*.
2. The verb phrase has an auxiliary verb (Hilfsverb).
The aux. verb is at the second position and the conjugated or the infinite verb at the end.
Ich *habe* den gesamten Text *abgeschrieben*.
Du *musst *den gesamten Text *abschreiben*.


----------



## german girl

Merci berndf pour avoir éclairé ma chandelle.
german girl


----------

