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.

Chooseable path?

So, I’m currently reading “To Be OR Not To Be” – a chooseable-path version of Hamlet written by Ryan North, who I suspect may be some sort of genius.  Or an idiot savant.  I’m not sure.  Maybe there isn’t a difference.

And “reading” is a bit of a loose term for this book.  “Playing” comes closer.  I’m playing a book.  I get to a point where the book says “do you want to go back to Denmark or become a pirate?” and I can’t help but shout “Pirate!”  Which causes no end of consternation in my household.

What is causing *me* no end of consternation is the fact that, if I loose my place, I can never find it again.  This book is labyrinthine.  I’m deliberately making choices I know will send me down dead ends, just so I can see which end it sends me to, but when I try to go back to find the original thread I branched off...

Judicious use of bookmarks hasn’t saved me as often as I would have liked.

I always hated “choose your own adventure” books when I was a kid.  They seemed unnecessarily light on plot, and that whole second person thing was always a bit naff.  This one, however, is totes rad, bro.  It’s oozing radditude.

There’s even a “chooseable path” book within the “chooseable path” book – to replace the play-within-a-play in the heart of Hamlet.  Sweet.

It may have also been written entirely in that weird post-surfer/skeghead slang that often perpetuates internet chatrooms and is notable in movies like “Dude, Where’s my Car?”.

Anyway, I was just sitting here, flicking through a grammar book for a German assignment, when it suddenly hit me:

Do you know what would make an awesome chooseable path book?  A book on grammar, that’s what.

No, seriously. 

Although, by “awesome”, I may just mean “seriously interesting to people who like this sort of stuff”, and possibly useful for other people”.

Imagine it:  You are given a sentence or some dialogue, and then given options as to which mini-lesson you want to branch off from that passage.

Das Mädchen will nicht sein Frühstuck essen, weil das mit der Katze spielt.

To a) Find out why the conjugated verb is suddenly at the end of the sentence, go to p18

b) Find out what happens when you use “mit” in front of a feminine noun, go to p26

c) Find out why we call the girl “it” rather than “she”, go to p29

d) See what happens to this sentence when you change the tense, go to p35

You pick “b” and are taken to a minilesson that uses that sentence (and others) to explain that “mit” is a preposition that must always be followed by the dative case, and feminine nouns switch their articles from “die” to “der” in the dative.  Then:

To a) See more dative prepositions, go to p15

b) Find out what happens to feminine nouns in the genitive case, go to p21

c) Try an exercise to test your knowledge of noun genders, go to p42

You choose your own grammar lesson!  And it’s based entirely on prompting you to ask a question and go looking for the answer - which means the answers are likely to be more meaningful for you, and you might be more likely to remember them!

It takes parsing sentences to a whole new level!

That’s exciting.  Try to at least pretend you think it’s cool.  

Colon vs Semicolon

Someone was asking about this earlier, and it just so happens that I have recently brushed up on my colon/semicolon usage.  So here's my answer:

It hinges on the relationship between the two clauses.

A colon is used when the text that follows is "further to" the current text.  It can be used to off-set both dependent and independent clauses, but the information has to follow on from the clause that was before it.

It's used when you introduce information:

There is something you must know: John is an inveterate liar.

Or when you give a list (after implying you are about to give a list):

There are three things you should know about John: he's ugly, he smells bad and his mother dresses him funny.

Or when there is a clear causal relationship (or you want to suggest there is):

John's lying ways would eventually catch up with him: he died alone in an abandoned mining town.*

In common usage, the colon is also used to introduce an example or a chunk of text (like I have done above).  Stylistically, though, you shouldn't use it for headings in documents.

A semi-colon is used to join two independent clauses that could easily be separate sentences, but are linked to each other on some level.

For example, if I wrote:

Your father is agitated today.  I saw John at the shops.

Those two sentences could be connected, or they could just be separate pieces of information that just happen to be next to each other.

But, if I wrote:

Your father is agitated today; I saw John at the shops.

Then the semicolon indicates that the two clauses are connected to each other, and one should be read in the light of the other.

Now, I could have written one of the sentences from my colon examples with a semicolon:

John's lying ways would eventually catch up with him; he died alone in an abandoned mining town.

And doing so would actually change the relationship between the clauses.  When I used a colon, I was indicating that one thing definitely lead to the other.  By using the semicolon, though, I'm hedging.  The death is connected to the lying ways, but not necessarily the result of them.

That's the usage side of things.  The style side of things (in terms of how many spaces to leave after the punctuation mark and whether the next word starts with upper or lower case) is a bit messier.  I have seen some style guides recommend that you treat a semicolon like a comma and a colon like a full stop, but other guides have suggested treating them both like a comma.

The answer is to hide behind the cloak of invisibility that is "consistency".  Pick a pattern and stick with it, until told otherwise.