Repeated Reading Project: Metadiary, entry 1.5

So, it turns out that I'm really bad at keeping up with something unless I have a due date involved.

I have continued with this project, just not as much as I should.

And the longer the gap is between my "repeated reading" activities, the more I forget from what I read last time.

The moral of the story is:  this repeated reading thing is more effective when you don't allow large gaps of time to occur between readings.

Repeated Reading Project: Metadiary, entry 1

Monday 22 July, 2015

My original plan with the learning diary was to type it up and put it on my blog.  Perhaps I’ll do that too, but I started writing it by hand in a notebook, and I’ve found the fact that I’m too lazy to “undo” (with an eraser) anything beyond a few spelling mistakes may actually be a benefit in this case.  When I type, I re-process what I’m going to say and go back to change it to match what I’m currently thinking, rather than what I thought at the time.  I’ve already done this several times with this paragraph.

When I write by hand, however, I don’t erase my previous jottings when I think better of them, I just cross them out and make a note to skip down to the point where I’ve recast what I’m doing.  This means my previous mistakes are still there to be read – and we all know how much information about the learning process can be gleaned from mistakes.

So, theoretically, I’m going to try to keep the learning diary going as a hand-written thing and type up my reflections on the process (this “metadiary”) to go online.  My original idea was to have the whole thing go online – just to really push the “Open Access” side of things.  Forget being able to access and use whatever papers I may or may not produce as a result of this project – my raw data will be available for other researchers, if they know where to look.  And, heck, let’s face it – I’m hardly the best person to analyse what’s happening here, am I?  I’ll do my best, but I think the best thing I can do is let other people play too. 

I’ll probably scan the hand-written notes at a later time and put them up somewhere.  I’m hesitant to type them up at this point, as I’m already double dipping in the diary idea by writing this reflection on the diary writing process.  Typing up the notes will just be compounding the observer’s paradox even further, and I’m pretty sure I’m already at a point where the data is highly compromised by the design.

Just to give myself a decent skeleton to work with for the learning diary, I’ve given myself a series of questions to answer after each session.  I’m also quite deliberately not answering them immediately afterwards, but a day or so later.  This is because I’m trying to avoid tiring myself out so that I can put more effort into it.  After reading a passage of text with a dictionary to help me with every third word (for some sentences, much more than that) I’m not ready to do something with a high cognitive load.  If I wrote in the diary immediately, I’d probably do a very poor job of it.

On the same track, I’m also making sure the questions I ask myself aren’t too onerous.  I want to eliminate possible excuses for avoiding the dairy in the future.

The questions are as follows:

·         What did you read?

·         How many words did you need to consult?

·         What’s the story so far?

·         Note two things you had to look up again

·         Note two new things that caught your eye

·         Have you learnt anything since last time which explained something you read or reread?

·         Are there any outside influences which may be affecting your perceptions or understanding?

·         Choose a sentence and dissect it.

I can see a number of “issues” arising from this project.  For one thing, my learning diary is part exploratory and part reflective.  That may be really useful for learning, but it’s probably going to be a nightmare for analysis.  For another, this metadiary is likely to be having a strong influence on what I remember/notice/process, so the double diary thing is also going to make analysis terribly awkward.

Oh, well, these things can always be discussed in the Discussion section.  Isn’t that what every paper ends with – telling the readers what the major issues with the paper where and why we “need more research” to confirm any findings?

So far I haven’t actually reflected on my learning diary entries.  Well, there’s only one so far, and I wrote it over a couple of days, and to write it I went back over the pages I’d already read a second time, so I’m actually reading each section more often than I thought I would originally – I’m repeating it for the preparation for reading the next section, and I’m repeating it for the journal.

However, I have noticed that the number of words I had to consult for the first passage I read practically halved the second time.  I also noticed that I had completely forgotten about postpositions and about the fact that particular prepositions and postpositions go with particular cases.  It was only when I started to dissect my sentence of choice and consulted Tuldava (my grammar text book) that I remembered this.  Having remembered it, I began noticing it in other instances throughout the text.

So far, I think both the repeated readings and the diary are helping me process some vocabulary and syntax that I would previously have skimmed over and forgotten.

The Repeated Reading Project: Estonian children's books

In my last post in this series, I mentioned that I was going to start a project in which I keep a learning diary to eventually use as the basis for a diary study.

The project itself is deceptively simple:  I'm going to read Estonian children's books (as in, books that are written in Estonian for children).  I'm going to read them rather slowly.

I've always struggled with reading in Estonian - much more than German.  With German children's books I have a fighting chance of nutting it out as I go along and getting some sort of flow happening, but not so much with Estonian.

English and German belong to the same language family, so they play according to similar rules.  Estonian is a completely different kettle of fish.  As a result, whenever I start trying to read in Estonian (particularly authentic texts) my brain gets really tired really quickly.  There's no flow.  So I tend to give up sooner... which means I don't read as much... which means I don't build up good reading muscles... which means it's hard for me to read in Estonian and my brain gets tired really quickly...

Its a vicious circle.

Plus, in spite of the fact that I've been learning Estonian for some time now, children's books never seem to get any easier.  My fluency in reading passages in textbooks is improving, but whenever I go to authentic texts I hit the same problem: too many unfamiliar words and too many unfamiliar forms of familiar words.

I can't select texts based on the Five Finger Rule, partly because I'm not in a position to look at books before I order them, and partly because I've yet to encounter a sentence in the wild where I'm 100% sure of every word, so I run out of fingers quite quickly.

So, what I'm going to do is a sort of Repeated Reading/Intensive Reading activity.  I'm only going to read short sections (say, one page) of a children's book, leaning heavily on my dictionaries to translate as I go (I know people say you shouldn't do that, but I haven't got much choice), and picking apart a couple of selected sentence with the aid of some grammar books.

BUT, and here's the bit that will hopefully make it interesting, I'll reread every section I've already read before starting a new section.

So by the time I finish the book, I'll have read some pages multiple times.  Especially the first page.  I'll have read that one a lot.

In my learning diary, I'll talk about what I noticed, what stood out for me and what seems to be getting easier.  I'll also pick a few sentences that tickled my fancy and dissect them.

Here's what I think that will achieve (my hypotheses, if you will):

1. I'll start to become so familiar with the words on the first pages that I'll pick up a bit of automaticity concerning them.  As I continue to encounter those words later in the text, I'll (hopefully) start to just know what they are, and gain a bit of flow.  When I encounter those words in other books, I'll won't need to consult the dictionaries so often to remind me what they are.

2. I'll also start recognising particular grammatical constructions and noticing morphological patterns, which will make those same constructions/patterns easier to identify and interpret as the project continues.

3. By the time I reach the end of the book, I'll be consulting the dictionaries and grammar reference books less often, and reading with more fluency.  This will (I hope) improve with each subsequent book I read.

4. As a sideline, I think this will also improve my ability to write in Estonian, as my understanding of the written language will improve.  I'm not sure how to pre-test and post-test, especially since I've already started reading and I didn't think to try to write a passage before hand.  I might do that over the weekend anyway.  At the very least, I'll be able to talk about how I "feel" about my writing ability.

I'm starting with Kust tuli pilv? by Epp Petrone because, of all the Estonian books I own, this has been the easiest one for me to try reading in the past.  I have attempted to read it previously, so it's not completely new to me, but I never *read* it in an "I know what those words actually mean" kind of way.  More of a "I've scanned it, recognised a few words and used the pictures to fill in the blanks in a hap-hazard fashion" kind of way.

My study is somewhat limited by the fact that my library is somewhat limited.  I can only use the books I have access to, and I live in regional Australia.  I'm going to order a few more books by the same author so I can at least do the "proper" Narrow Reading thing to an extent.

My ultimate goal is to magically keep this up as I progress through the books in my collection and get to longer works like Kunksmoor by Aino Pervik and Nukitsamees by Oskar Luts.  With the longer works, I'll have to think strategically about how I'm going to divide the books into sections and how many sections I'll reread before starting a new section, but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

It may take some time.

The Repeated Reading Project: Introducing the Diary Study

Remember last year when I used this blog as praxis for studying German grammar ahead of a test?  Well, if you hated that you're not going to enjoy the posts in this series.

I've decided to kick up my Estonian a notch, and I'm going to see if I can spur myself into action by attempting a diary study.

What's a diary study?  It's a type of research in which the researcher is also the researched - they use themselves as the guinea pig, and keep a diary of their progress.  The diary is then analysed and the findings are written up as a paper of some description.

It's kind of like a case study performed on oneself.

I think there's an element to which it is a bit dodgy.  Nothing scientific where the observed and the observer are the same person is ever really that great.  For one thing, the observer's paradox is compounded in multiple ways.  The subject's behaviour alters because she/he is being observed, what the observer notices is altered because she/he is expecting to notice certain things...

And this feeds back into the noticing hypothesis, in which one learns what one notices - so the fact that the researcher is intentionally looking for certain things means she/he is specifically noticing those things, and is then therefore more likely to learn those things.  Under different circumstances, the subject(s) might not notice (and therefor learn) those things at all (or might notice and learn different things).

Plus, any findings are statistically insignificant.

I wouldn't base any decisions on a diary study, unless that decision was "hey, let's try turning this into a bigger study with more people who are observed by other people", but they do give some interesting data, which can be combined with data from other case studies and larger-scale studies to give some actual basis for real decision making.

Maybe the results of this diary study will be useful for research in the language acquisition and reading in a foreign language fields.

Primarily, I've decided to do this specifically because it will give me a reason to a) remember to keep the project going, and b) prompt me to keep a learning diary.

Remember what I said above about the noticing hypothesis?  It really works - the more attention you pay to something, the more likely you are to actually internalise it and remember it later.  Keeping a learning diary is brilliant for that.  Unfortunately, unless there's a due date attached to something, I usually forget to do it - even if it is incredibly useful.

So, I'm going to keep a learning diary (posted on this blog), which will become the primary source of data for my diary study.

What's the actual project, you say?

I'm glad you asked.  See the next post.

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.

Q&A: Helfen

The question has been sitting on a piece of paper on my desk for a while now, but I haven't quite found the time to find the answer:

What's the difference between "hilf mir, bitte" and "helft mir, bitte"?

I can't even remember where I saw these, to be honest.  I just wrote them down in the hope that I would eventually get off my blessed assurance and find the answer.  It's a praxis thing, you see.  I never really understand something until I challenge myself to question it deeper, and then think about how I could explain it to someone else.

I'm not 100% sure of this, because I'm piecing this together from two separate conjugation tables which are each giving me half the story.  I may be wrong, but I'll discover that later.

In "hilf mir, bitte", helfen is clearly in the 2nd person informal singular (2PISg) imperative form.

I think, although I'm not sure, that in "helft mir, bitte", it's in the the 2nd person informal plural (2PIPl) imperative form.

Now, I'm not sure about this, because one of my conjugation tables lists "helft" as the standard present tense form for 2PIPl, and as far as I know you usually drop the present tense endings for an imperative.

But at the same time, I'm pretty sure I've never encountered imperatives for 2PIPl before, so I have no idea if they should have the ending or not.

In my other conjugation table, it *does* include "helft" on the list of imperatives (along with "hilf" and "helfen"), but doesn't put a pronoun next to it (like it does for almost everything else), so I can only assume it's for 2PIPl.

So, I think the difference between "hilf mir, bitte" and "helft mir, bitte" is the number of people you are asking for help at the time.