Connecting Clauses, or: Sharon's Notes, Conjunctiony Things, pt 1

I am preparing for a German exam.  You have been warned.

Okay, kids, we all know what a clause is, right?  Good.  Moving on.

Now, a clause can be a whole sentence and a sentence can be a single clause, but we tend to like smooshing multiple clauses together in our sentences.  Why, the sentence I have just written contains no less than three clauses.

When we stitch clauses together, we do it with the aid of conjunctions and punctuation.

That's what conjunctions are for - stitching clauses together.  And we all know why we shouldn't start a sentence with a conjunction, don't we?  But I digress.

There are two primary types of clauses:  main clauses (Hauptsatz) and subordinate clauses (Nebensatz).  Main clauses can float off on their own and form sentences all by themselves, but subordinate clauses (which supply further information to the main clause) need to attach themselves to a main clause to make a complete sentence - one can't just say "because there were rabbits".

You can combine these two types of clauses in a number of ways:

1.  You can attach a main clause and a subordinate clause using a conjunction like da or weil (because), obwohl (although), sodass/so...dass (in order to)... and, well, a whole bunch of others:  als, als ob, bevor, bis, damit, dass, nachdem, ob, obgleich, ohne dass, ohne...zu, sobald seit/seitdem, solange, um...zu, während, wenn and wie.

You'll notice these all have that same range of meaning - this information is giving more detail or context to another piece of information.  You can usually drop anything that follows one of these words and the sentence would still make sense, but if you dropped the other part of the sentence you'd be left with, well, rabbits of uncertain relevance.

When you combine clauses like this, the conjugated verb in the subordinate clause gets sent to the end of the clause (no doubt for some misdemeanour):

"Tom hat nicht geschlafen, weil Hasen dort waren."

2.  You can attach two main clauses using a conjunction like denn (because) and all the standard clause-joining conjunctions like und, aber, oder, sondern (etc).

In this case, because you have two complete clauses that can both go off and form their own sentences, the verb sits in the "normal" position for a main clause in both clauses:

"Tom hat nicht geschlafen, denn Hasen waren dort."

But wait, I hear you ask.  Why doesn't denn turn the clause into a subordinate clause, seeing as it means the same thing as da and weil?

Well, I have no idea.  I'm guessing it has something to do with the relative merits of the second clause (does it only exist to provide more information for the first clause, or is it more important than that?) and whether it would make perfect sense if the two clauses were, in fact, separated into two sentences placed side by side:  "Tom hat nicht geschlafen.  Hasen waren dort."

Either that, or it's magic.

Dunno.

3.  You can join two main clauses using a conjunction like like totzdem (however) or deshalb, darum and deswegen (various shades of "therefore").

In this case, the verb in the second clause hangs around directly after the conjunction:

"Hasen waren dort, deshalb hat Tom nicht geschlafen."

In this case, I think the entire first clause (plus conjunction) is taking up the role of the "first element" in the second clause.  And, as we all know, when another part of the sentence slips into the first position, the verb stays in the second position and just shoves the subject of the sentence to one side.

And, before I leave this topic and go home for the night, let's not forget the role of the comma.  It's there to separate out the two clauses.  It totally does this for all subordinate clauses, and it mostly does this for two main clauses when there are words like denn, deshalb and aber involved - but it doesn't necessarily do it for main clauses joined by und or oder.

Declination of Adjectives, or: Sharon's Notes, Adjectival things pt 1

I am preparing for a German exam.  You have been warned.

Okay, a lot of the stuff to do with adjectives in German hangs off the case declension thing.  That's going to be the topic of another post, so I'm just going to take it as read, for now, that cases exist and they make words do stuff.

Now, adjectives can be found hanging around in a sentence in one of two places:  after a verb like "is", "seems" or "remains", or in front of a noun.

Let's get that first one out of the way, shall we?  In a sentence like "the apple looks fresh", "the climate is torrid" or "my giddy aunt remains giddy", there isn't actually much happening.  Something is simply existing in a certain state, and the adjective is telling us what that state is.

The verb, in this case, is what we call a copula - it's actually joining the noun with whatever state of existence the noun happens to be in.  And the adjectives are what we call "predicative adjectives" - in that they form the predicate of the verb (a predicate is what you get when your verb doesn't have an object, but still needs to include a concept beyond the verb in order to make sense).

In German, predicative adjectives are free to loll about in their natural state, not taking on any particular ending at all:  "Das Auto ist rot", "Die Frauen scheinen wütend", "Der Mann bleibt dumm".

So, yeah.  That's it.  Predicative adjectives are covered.  Good.  Now onto the attributive adjectives.

Attributive adjectives are the ones that hang around in front of a noun and become part of the noun group.  The noun itself is modified by the adjective.  It's not just "the car" it's "the red car".

Attributive adjectives change their endings depending on:

• The case of the noun group
• The gender of the noun
• The presence of a definite or indefinite article in the noun group

And, while all of these things are highly important, but it's the thing about the article that tends to govern the way we think about German adjectives.

If the noun group has a definite article (die, der, das, etc) or any of the words that are treated the same way as definite articles (the "der words": dieser, jener, derselbe, welcher, jeder and alle [and all their sisters]), then this happens:

Nominative case (singular):  All adjectives, regardless of gender, will end in an -e. 
Accusative case (singular):  Masculine adjectives end with an -en, the others with an -e.
Dative and Genitive cases (singular):  Everything ends with an -en.
Plural nouns: Everything ends with an -en.

Lovely.  It makes no sense at all, but that's life in a German sentence.  At least it's reasonably clear.

If the noun group has an indefinite article (ein or eine, etc) or one of the "ein words" (mein, dein, sein, ihr, unser, euer and kein, etc), then this happens:

Nominative case:  The adjective kind of takes on the same(ish) endings as a definite article - M = -er, N = -es and F = -e. Plurals start forging separate identities, so the nominative plural ends in -e.
Accusative case:  As above, the definite article endings leach over into the adverbs - M = -en, N = -es, F = -e. Pl = -e.
Dative and Genitive cases:  Everything still ends with an -en.*

Mmmhmm.  Okay.  There is a pattern here, but it's a bit hard to see at present.

Things get slightly more sensible when you have an adjective in a noun group with no article.  In this case the adjectives really do replace the articles, so they are adopting more or less the same endings as der words:

Nominative case:  M -er, N -es, F -e, Pl -e.
Accusative case:  M -en, N -es, F -e, Pl -e.
Dative case: M -em, N -em, F -e, Pl -e.
Genitive case: M -en, N -en, F -er, Pl -er.

Basically, what happens is that, in the absence of a definite article, the adjectives take the definite articles' endings for themselves, to try to indicate the case and gender of the noun.

The patterns are really clear and obvious for Nominative and Accusative cases.  Dative and Genitive seem to be bumming around a bit.  This is because the indefinite article is still doing some heavy lifting for Dative and Genitive noun groups.  You'll notice they pull up their socks and start doing something useful when there are no articles at all.

Mind you, Genitive adjectives still seems to be a bit distracted - they haven't gotten around to remembering that Genitive case usually has an -es on the end of its articles...

So, all you have to do is keep track of the case and gender of your nouns, and the adjectives sort themselves out - but let the articles boss them around.

And remember, kids, adjectives stack.  When you have a series of adjectives sitting between the same article/noun combo, they all take the same endings:

"Das alte, verrostete, rote Auto ist noch gut..."



*In one of my textbooks, there is an indication that Genitive adjectives following indefinite articles en in -er.  I haven't seen this anywhere else, but it has left me feeling doubtful.

Perfekt, or: Sharon's notes, Verby things, part two.

I am preparing for a German exam.  You have been warned.

In my former post, Theophilus, I suggested the Perfekt (or perfect tense of verbs) was tricksier than the Plusquamperfekt (or pluperfect tense).

This isn't strictly true.

The fact of the matter is, the rules for making the perfect and the pluperfect in German are pretty dang similar.  The only real difference is the tense of the auxiliary verb.

In the Plusquamperfekt we had two parts of the verb:  the auxiliary, which was the simple past tense of haben or sein, and the past participle of the main verb.

In the Perfekt, we have two parts of the verb:  the auxiliary, which is the present tense of haben or sein, and the past participle of the main verb.

Plusquamperfekt:  "Ich hatte den Hund gekauft."
Perfekt: "Ich habe den Hund gekauft."

And all the stuff about verby rules in German that applied to the Plusquamperfekt also apply to the Perfekt:

• The auxiliary verb takes the position of the conjugated verb (second spot in a standard clause, or kicked to the end of the clause in a dependent clause), and cops all of the conjugation, while the past participle sits at the end of the clause and looks pretty.
• Haben is used for most verbs, but sein is used for verbs indicating motion towards/away from something or a change of state.

So really, when it comes to making the Perfekt, it's no more complicated than the Plusquamperfekt - you just need to know the past participle of the verb and you're sweet.

It's where and how you use the Perfekt that's a bit tricksy for English speakers.

In English, the perfect tense is made by... well, it's made by combining the present tense form of "have" with the past participle of the main verb:  "I have eaten."  Yes, that's pretty much what happens in German, but without much use for the "to be" verb (while they use it frequently).

English speakers use it to indicate something that happened in past - finished, done, dusted - that is relevant to what's happening now.  If you say "I have eaten", it's probably because someone just asked you if you wanted something to eat, and you are telling them that, in your world, at present, the eating thing has been resolved.

So it's a continuum thing (timey-wimey stuff).  If the thing that is over and resolved is relevant to something happening in the present, you use the perfect tense.  If it is relevant to events that are also in the past, you use the pluperfect.

"I have eaten, but if you want to grab a cup of coffee I'll come with you." (perfect)
"I had eaten when Tom and Jack turned up at my house with a pizza." (pluperfect)

If you pay close attention, you may notice that the perfect tense occurs more often in "real-time" communication (like live conversations and email exchanges), while the pluperfect occurs more often in written communication and narratives.

When do we say "I ate"?  Well, mostly when answering questions or narrating events in the past without particular reference to how far in the past those events occurred in relation to other events.

"I ate the spaghetti."

This is the simple past tense - simple in construction, but also in terms of the time-space continuum.  It's just something that happened.

The simple past tense indicates the information is simply pertinent in and off itself, while the perfect and the pluperfect tense indicate the information pertains to other information.

If someone said "I at the spaghetti", we would be content to leave it at that, but if they said "I have eaten the spaghetti", we might feel compelled to ask "so?"

So, getting back to German.

In German, we use the Perfekt to cover both things that simply happened in the past as well as things that still have some baring on the current point in the continuum.  Actually, it even covers the progressive form (things that started in the past and haven't finished yet), which is the really tricksy bit.

So where we would notice a marked difference between saying "I ate the spaghetti", "I have eaten the spaghetti" and "I have been eating the spaghetti", in German - not so much.

"Ich aß die Spaghetti" and "ich habe die Spaghetti gegessen" are (so I have been told) much of a muchness.  Describing the exact same events (in the exact same point of the space-time continuum) you would be more likely to use the Präteritum (simple past tense/preterite) in written German and the Perfekt in spoken conversation.

They say that, in spoken German, you are also more likely to use the Perfekt than the Plusquamperfekt.

So, when talking to your peeps, you'll probably say "Ich habe die Spaghetti gegessen" - which could mean:

• you have eaten the spaghetti (so the spaghetti is all gone, now), 
• you have been eating the spaghetti (so the spaghetti stocks are decidedly lower), 
• you had eaten the spaghetti (earlier today, just before some other stuff happened) or 
• you ate the spaghetti ("but my sister had the pizza - why do you ask?")

Which makes the Perfekt the hardest working tense in spoken German, I'd say.

But, since you are more likely to hear people using the Perfekt as they chat on the street, but more likely to use the Präteritum or Plusquamperfekt in written German, that means you have to pay close attention for your exams and assignments.

Are you writing dialogue?  Use the Perfekt a lot.

Are you writing narrative?  Use the Präteritum and the Plusquamperfekt (unless, of course, you want to say something that actually requires the Perfekt:  "Er hat die Spaghetti gegessen, und will keine Pizza").

Plusquamperfekt, or: Sharon's notes, Verby things, part one.

I am preparing for a German exam.  You have been warned.

So,what's the deal with "plusquamperfekt"?

I'm glad you asked.  The pluperfect tense of a verb is the form we usually use to indicate something that had occurred even earlier in the past than the events currently being recounted.

It's the "had completed" in the sentences:  "I had completed my morning routine when the phone rang" and "When Jason came to see me I had already completed my resignation".  It indicates that something was done, over and finished by the time this part of the story was taking place.

"This dog had bitten postmen previously, so Todd was extremely wary of his 'friendly' greeting."

Notice that, in English, we have two components going into this verb?  There's the auxiliary, which is usually 'had' or 'was' (the simple past tense forms of 'have' and 'be') and the past-participle version of the main verb.

In German, this tense is created by using the Präteritum (simple past tense) of haben or sein as the auxiliary verb and the Partzip II (past participle) form of the main verb... oh, wait.  That's exactly the same thing we do in English.

For the record, the simple past of haben and sein are thus:

ich hatte du hattest er/sie/es hatte wir hatten ihr hattet sie/Sie hatten

ich war du warst er/sie/es war wir waren ihr wart sie/Sie waren

Which always trips me up a bit, because something in my head thinks 'hat' should be past tense - but it's not (it's third person singular present).  Er hat = he has.  Er hatte = he had.  Remember that, kids.

Now, the Plusquamperfekt is not exactly like English.  Some aspects of this are very German.

For example, the auxiliary and the main verb have to sit in particular parts of the clause.  In a bog-standard German clause, the verb always takes the second position:

"Der Hund biss den Mann"

But if there is an auxiliary verb and a main verb, then the auxiliary verb takes the second position (and cops all the conjugation) and the past participle of the main verb (sans conjugation) scoots to the end of the clause:

"Der Hund hatte den Mann gebissen"

Of course, that moves around a bit for more complicated sentences:

"Wenn der Hund den Mann gebissen hatte, warum klagte er nicht?"

Yeah.  Verbs.  The Germans probably think that sort of thing is reasonable.

Another thing that is quite German about the Plusquamperfekt is the choice of auxiliaries.  In English, we pretty much use "had" for everything.  We really only use "was" in certain dialects, and then really only for "go" and "do" ("I was done").

In German, however, you use "war" (and it's brothers) for any verb where something changes its position in the space-time continuum.  Or any existential continuum.  And it doesn't really have to "change" it's state.  It could be staying still.  Just ask yourself:  "is this verb, in some way, shape or form, about movement?"  If the answer is "yes", then it's highly likely you use "war".

Did you arrive?  Depart?  Stay?  Go?  Become?  Be?

Ich war angekommen.  Sie war abgefahren.  Wir waren geblieben.  Ihr wart dort gegangen.  Es war kalt gewesen.  Sie waren Lehrerin geworden.

This is also the case for verbs like flying, driving, running, walking... but also for verbs like sleeping, happening, growing, being born and dying.

"Wir waren nach Berlin gefahren, bevor es war passiert."

The Plusquamperfekt is actually pretty straightforward.  The hardest part is getting the past participle right.

The Perfekt, now, that's a bit odd.  But, as they say, is another story.

What's a Thesaurus?

I had an interesting conversation with a German native the other day, trying to explain what a thesaurus was.

Me:  Do Germans have thesauri?  I was trying to find one.
Her:  Do we have what?
Me:  A thesaurus.  Do you know of a good thesaurus for German?
Her:  What is that?
Me:  It's a book where you can find other words that mean the same thing as the word you know.
Her:  We have synonym books, if that's what you mean?
Me:  Sort of, but I was hoping for a good, proper thesaurus.  It's got more depth than synonyms - it breaks ideas down into chunks and gives you words that match those chunks.
Her:  Um... What?
Me:  Like, it would take the idea of furniture, break that into different kinds of furniture - like furniture you sit on - and then give you words for furniture you sit on.  Couch, divan, chaise-longue, chair.  That sort of thing.
Her:  Why on earth would anyone need that?

A good thesaurus - a true thesaurus - defines the universe.  It divides and subdivides all of the concepts within human experience and then offers you a vocabulary to use for those concepts.

It's more than a book of synonyms.  It's more than a dictionary, really - for it gives you the definition and then lets you find all the words that fit.  Well, many of the words that fit.  There are a lot of words in the world.

When I was in high school, Roget's Thesaurus was on the book list.  It became one of my most cherished tools.  I cannot imagine a world where this book does not exist.

As a librarian, I encounter other thesauri all the time.  The systems of subject headings (like MeSH) used by databases to classify and organise their entries are thesauri.  Whether the topic you are dealing with is the English language or the fields of medical knowledge, the point of a thesaurus is to ferret out the facets of a thing and give you a term you can use for any particular facet.

So, needless to say, I was absolutely flabbergasted recently when I read something that suggested English is unique in the word for having a thesaurus like Roget's.

Surely such a thing would be vital for any serious study of any language?  How could you take your language seriously and not have a thesaurus?  More so than a dictionary, a thesaurus maps the conceptual world of a language.  A dictionary will tell you the definition of a "divan" - a thesaurus will show you where the word fits into the grand scheme of things.

And, from a language learning point of view, a thesaurus would surely be the most useful of tools?  Rather than plowing through multiple dictionaries, trying to find the word that sort-of-maybe-kind-of matches the word you have in mind - constantly finding words that don't quite match up - you could just look up the definition of the word you want, and find the words that match that definition.

I have a book at home which is a multilingual exploded visual dictionary, and it is the most marvelous thing.  It's sort of, kind of, almost a multilingual thesaurus, only there are pictures involved.  You can find a word for the hilt of a sword in six language just by finding the picture of a sword and looking for the hilt.

That's what a multilingual thesaurus should be.  That's what it can do.

That's a powerful and useful thing.

So, applied linguists of the world, get cracking.  There's the whole of human language to map.