-1

It is my understanding that separable prefix is supposed to go the end of the clause it is in, right?

  • So in the sentence, Warum kommst du nicht mit Kafee trinken? Is "Kaffee trinken" a subordinate clause? If not and there is only one clause in this whole sentence, what is the explanation behind it?

    "Separable prefixes go to the end of the clause EXCEPT [whatever rule it is that makes "mit" occupy the position before "Kafee trinken"]?

  • Alle bringen etwas zu essen oder zu trinken mit. The same question applies here, what is the grammatical difference between "Kaffee trinken" and "etwas zu essen oder zu trinken"? Besides, "zu" I don't see any difference at all: [Noun/pronoun] + zu + [infinitive]

So why does "mit" precede one and follow the other?

EDIT: I think I may have figured out the answer: In the first sentence, "kaffee trinken kommen" is a 2-verb combination http://www.dartmouth.edu/~deutsch/Grammatik/WordOrder/MainClauses.html

And separable prefix precedes the final infinitive. So, She comes with to shop would be Sie kommt mit einkaufen and NOT Sie kommt einkaufen mit. True?

Unrivalled confusion
  • 791
  • 5
  • 14
  • Much better formulated, but in my opinion still a duplicate. Maybe you can answer the other question. – Carsten S May 01 '18 at 09:40
  • @CarstenS The linked question is from the same OP, however he doesn't seem satisfied with the answers there ;) – tallistroan May 01 '18 at 10:01
  • @tallistroan, oh, he has just been wasting my time then. I had not noticed, thanks. – Carsten S May 01 '18 at 10:02
  • 1
    Please no double-posts! If you want to replace the other question by this one, then please delete your first version. – Hubert Schölnast May 01 '18 at 10:15
  • Seit mittlerweile 10 Tagen versuche ich, Evil Racehorse diese Frage auf verschiedenen Wegen und in epischer Breite zu beantworten. Alles, was er tut, ist immer wieder diese selbe Frage zu stellen, ich habe schon längst das Gefühl, mich mit ihm im Kreis zu drehen. Falls noch jemand Lust auf ein solches Tänzchen hat: Viel Spaß dabei! – Ralf Joerres May 01 '18 at 10:19
  • Concerning the separable prefix question I meanwhile came to the conclusion that 'mit' in the 'coffee question' has not necessarily to be interpreted as a verb prefix. I tried to demonstrate this in an additional argument to the above mentioned first discussion of the problem. – Ralf Joerres May 01 '18 at 21:22
  • Thank you for the unnecessary judgement, I have not been wasting anyone's time nor being "unsatisfied" with answers. The reality is that noone did answer the actual question.

    It turns out that separable prefix doesn't actually go into the end of the clause as several members confirmed that sentence to be a single clause after which I asked very clearly, so what is the rule here?

    Separable prefixes precede [insert the answer here], which noone even attempted. I'm happy to delete the original question if it goes against any rules but someone mistakenly linked this one to it unfortunately

     – Unrivalled confusion May 01 '18 at 22:40
  • In the meantime, "This question has been asked before and already has an answer (which it didn't even after the bounty). If those answers do not fully address your question, please edit this question to explain how it is different or ASK A NEW QUESTION."

    Am I missing something here?

     – Unrivalled confusion May 01 '18 at 22:47
  • What you are missing is that you have not made clear how this question is different. I had to go look for the other answer and compare then to then suggest closing this question. That was a waste of my time. Whether the other question had satisfactory answers is of no import. – Carsten S May 03 '18 at 06:33
  • Well, every reply I got totally missed what I was asking as an answer and all referred to different things, leading me to conclude that I probably filled it with too much redundant details. So I made it more direct and formulated this time. – Unrivalled confusion May 03 '18 at 09:18
  • 1
    @EvilRacehorse, I am sorry that your experience here was so bad. Sometimes one can be a bit unlucky with a question. I still think that this one is a duplicate, though. Anyway, hopefully you have better luck here in the future. – Carsten S May 03 '18 at 13:39
  • Thank you for the clarification. What I was confused about that I literally followed the suggestion of the forum (i.e. ask a new question) and received some bizarre negative reaction. My question was simple, as to WHY a certain sentence structure is wrong, all I was expecting an explanation regarding what rule that sentence violated. But all answers were saturated with ambiguity, other examples and no direct answer. I will pose this question to an actual language instructor and if successful, share the answer here on the original question – Unrivalled confusion May 03 '18 at 21:37

1 Answers1

2

One way to parse these sentences (I'm sure there is at least a dozen others):

"Kaffee trinken" is an infinitve clause (the "zu" particle is omitted because "kommen" is a verb of motion). The same goes for "einkaufen". This clause fulfils the role of an adverbial (denoting direction and/or purpose) w.r.t the main clause, so it is also an adverbial clause. [edit: added] You could even separate it with a comma if you wanted to, although a comma in this position is neither required nor commonly used.

On the other hand, "etwas zu essen oder zu trinken" is the (direct, accusative) object of "mitbringen", and not a clause of its own. [edit: added] The "zu essen oder zu trinken" part is an attribute applied to "etwas", you could just as well say "etwas essbares", so although this part contains an infinitive (or rather, two), it is not an infinitive clause.

So there is no "except", but rather "Kaffee trinken" (and "einkaufen") is not part of the main clause (to whose end the separatable prefix gets shifted), whereas "etwas zu essen oder zu trinken" is.

Hans-Jakob
  • 398
  • 2
  • 6
  • Thank you, so "Kaffee trinken" is a subordinate clause on its own? Shouldn't that also require it to be separated from the main clause?

    In the meantime, if "noun/demonstrative pronoun + infinitive" can be a subordinate clause, does the addition of "zu", like in "etwas ZU essen" prevent it from being a subordinate clause?

    I would appreciate an explanation of this :)

     – Unrivalled confusion May 01 '18 at 22:51
  • By "separated" do you mean by interpunction (e.g. a comma)? You could use one, but it is neither required not particularly common in this construction.

    As for "etwas zu essen", the "zu essen" part is an attribute applied to "etwas" (you could say "etwas essbares" instead). It not being a clause of its own has nothing to do with the "zu".

     – Hans-Jakob May 03 '18 at 03:45
  • Yes, I meant separation by a comma. I usually use comma to separate clauses (even though it is not strictly required) for comfort. I am just confused whether "Kaffee trinken" is a separate clause or this sentence just ha one clause a I have received mixed responses and will appreciate a more decisive answer on this – Unrivalled confusion May 03 '18 at 09:16