German questions

[azhong]

1) Etwas anderes/ Noch etwas, das ich getan habe, ist Kuchen zu backen.
2) Was ich noch getan habe, ist, Kuchen zu backen.
(Another thing I have done is baking a cake.)

Q: Are all the German expressions equally natural? Thank you.

[azhong]

Und was will mam mit nem türkischen Pass... der Deutsche ist besser.
"What do you want a Turkish passport for...the German [passport]] is better."

In the old orthography, which I learnt at school, der Deutsche would have been written with a lower case "d", because it was seen as an adjective referring back to a noun, not as an adjective used as a noun. [i.e.,
... der deutsche ist besser.]

The way I have it is exactly how I found it on a random Facebook page.

I happened to review this discussion today. How about "ein deutscher"?
... ein deutscher [Pass] ist besser.
- der Pass: passport

There are exceptions to the capitalisation rule, however, and seit kurzem is one... However, since the phrase as a whole functions as an adverb (parallel to a simple adverb like kürzlich), the convention is not to capitalise kurzem...

Seit kurzem is parallel to kürzlich? This is, however, what Hans told me here:

Ich lerne kürzlich seit kurzem*3) Deutsch...
(I am learning German recently...)

*3) kürzlich means "a short while ago"; it marks a point in time, not a period.

Maybe "kürzlich" is parallel to "von kurzem"? I just read the sentence:

▸Der Präsident ist vor kurzem verschieden.
("the president passed away recently"

- vor kurzem: "a short while ago"

[hwhatting]

1) Etwas anderes/ Noch etwas, das ich getan habe, ist Kuchen zu backen.
2) Was ich noch getan habe, ist, Kuchen zu backen.
(Another thing I have done is baking a cake.)

Q: Are all the German expressions equally natural? Thank you.

They are both natural. Some remarks:
1) Colloquial German often uses machen instead of tun.
2) Kuchen backen can be turned into a verbal noun.
So another way of putting this is Was ich noch gemacht habe // Etwas anderes/ Noch etwas, das ich gemacht habe, ist Kuchenbacken.

I happened to review this discussion today. How about "ein deutscher"?
... ein deutscher [Pass] ist besser.

Yes, that's fine.

There are exceptions to the capitalisation rule, however, and seit kurzem is one... However, since the phrase as a whole functions as an adverb (parallel to a simple adverb like kürzlich), the convention is not to capitalise kurzem...

Seit kurzem is parallel to kürzlich? This is, however, what Hans told me [url=https://www.verduria.org/viewtopic.php?
(snip)

I guess linguoboy wanted to say that they are parallel in being adverbs and written will lower case letters. They are different in meaning.

[Linguoboy]

I guess linguoboy wanted to say that they are parallel in being adverbs and written will lower case letters. They are different in meaning.

That's exactly what I meant, thanks H-W. "Parallel" in this instance means "similar in essential respects". Which "respects" are "essential" is determined by context, which in this case was a discussion of syntactic function.

[azhong]

Q: Can "dafür, dass" replace "warum"? Thank you.
Thomas geht morgens spaziert. Das liegt daran, dass er jetzt abnimmt.
1) Das ist ihm auch der Gerund, warum er morgens spazieren geht.
? 2) Das ist ihm auch der Gerund dafür, dass ...

Q: Is the sentence pattern "Was...außer... ist" idiomatic for you? I received both comments.
1) Was er morgens neben/außer einem Spaziergang am Flussufer (noch) macht, sind Wäsche waschen und Bücher lesen.
2)Was ich heute gemacht habe, außer Kuchenbacken und Wäschewaschen, ist noch Bücherlesen.

[hwhatting]

Q: Can "dafür, dass" replace "warum"? Thank you.
Thomas geht morgens spaziert. Das liegt daran, dass er jetzt abnimmt*1).
1) Das ist ihm auch der Gerund, warum er morgens spazieren geht.
? 2) Das ist ihm auch der Gerund dafür, dass ...

Yes, that's fine.
*1) While I can imagine someone putting it like this, but for me the sentence is not logical - he is not walking because his weight is going down, but in order to lose weight. Also, das liegt daran normally indicates some objective or out-of-control reasons. So I'd write:
Der Grund ist, dass er jetzt abnehmen will / auf seine schlanke Linie achtet.

Q: Is the sentence pattern "Was...außer... ist" idiomatic for you? I received both comments.
1) Was er morgens neben/außer einem Spaziergang am Flussufer (noch) macht, sind Wäsche waschen und Bücher lesen.
2)Was ich heute gemacht habe, außer Kuchenbacken und Wäschewaschen, ist noch Bücher lesen*2).

Yes, that pattern is idiomatic.
*2) Different to Kuchenbacken und Wäschewaschen, Bücherlesen is not a fixed compound and is normally written with two words.

[azhong]

I made a passage, where I wrote:
1. Jeden Morgen geht mein Nachbar Thomas mit seinem Hund den Fluss entlang spazieren.
2. Morgens macht er am Flussufer einen Spaziergang, außerdem noch wäscht seine Wäsche und liest.
*2.1 Nach dem Spaziergang ist ihm immer Wäschewaschen und Bücher lesen.

Then I received a correction in 2.1
2.1.1 Nach dem Spaziergang wäscht er die Wäsche und liest..

I can understand the corrected sentence, but I don't understand how my original 2.1 goes wrong. I think the structure should work at least in English? Or does it not work even in English, either?

After going for a walk is always a laundry and then books-reading for him (on mornings). or
It's always a laundry and then books-reading after his walk on mornings.

I'd like to know if there is any alternative German expression closer 2.1. Thank you.

[azhong]

Also, I received the correction:
2.2) Was er morgens neben einem Spaziergang am Flussufer (noch) macht, sind ist Wäsche waschen und Bücher ein Buch lesen.
Q: So it's "ist", not "sind", even though there are two things (laundry and reading)? Should I also use "is" in English?
(I have no questions about the other correction Bücher ein Buch; he explained the correction stands on the reason that it's not usual to read many books at a time.

[hwhatting]

I made a passage, where I wrote:
1. Jeden Morgen geht mein Nachbar Thomas mit seinem Hund den Fluss entlang spazieren.
2. Morgens macht er am Flussufer einen Spaziergang, außerdem noch wäscht er noch seine Wäsche und liest.

The position you put noch in is quite marked; the usual Position is where I put it.

*2.1 Nach dem Spaziergang ist bei ihm immer Wäschewaschen und Bücher lesen angesagt / an der Reihe.

Then I received a correction in 2.1
2.1.1 Nach dem Spaziergang wäscht er die Wäsche und liest..

I can understand the corrected sentence, but I don't understand how my original 2.1 goes wrong. I think the structure should work at least in English? Or does it not work even in English, either?

After going for a walk is always a laundry and then books-reading for him (on mornings). or
It's always a laundry and then books-reading after his walk on mornings.

I'd like to know if there is any alternative German expression closer 2.1. Thank you.

See above - that's the closest you can get to the English construction. Other possibilities are:
Nach dem Spaziergang macht er immer dasselbe, Wäschewaschen und Bücher lesen.
Nach dem Spaziergang kommt / kommen bei ihm immer Wäschewaschen und Bücher lesen.

[hwhatting]

Also, I received the correction:
2.2) Was er morgens neben einem Spaziergang am Flussufer (noch) macht, sind ist Wäsche waschen und Bücher ein Buch lesen.
Q: So it's "ist", not "sind", even though there are two things (laundry and reading)?

For me, sind works as well. But ist would be more usual; in that kind of sentence the verb can take as the subject and be governed by the subject of the preceding clause (was = singular) or the following nouns (= plural).

Should I also use "is" in English?

At least I can say that "What he does …, is doing laundry and reading books" sounds okay to me.

(I have no questions about the other correction Bücher ein Buch; he explained the correction stands on the reason that it's not usual to read many books at a time.

That's a bullshit correction. Firstly, you absolutely can read several books in the course of a morning, even if you don't finish them - a chapter here, some poems there, a couple of paragraphs in a third book, etc. Secondly, this is about a habit, and over time throughout all those mornings it's quite likely that he'll read more than one book. Thirdly, it's a general description of activity, and that general activity is called Bücher lesen. So, Bücher lesen is correct and doesn't need to be struck. (ein Buch lesen is not wrong, it's just not the only correct version, like the person correcting you implied).

[azhong]

That's a bullshit correction...

Wow, I never expect our gentleman Hans will talk this way from when he started correcting my German. XD
(Do I use "from when" correctly this time?)

Q: Should the underlined "einem" and "ein" be left out or be kept?
Nach einem Essen ist immer bei mir ein Spaziergang angesagt/an der Reihe.
(After my meal it comes always then a walk.)
(After my meal I always take a walk.)

[hwhatting]

That's a bullshit correction...

Wow, I never expected our gentleman Hans will talk this way from when he started correcting my German. XD

Sorry to destroy your positive image of me.

(Do I use "from when" correctly this time?)

I'd rater go for since here, but maybe native speakers can weigh in.

Q: Should the underlined "einem" and "ein" be left out or be kept?
Nach einem Essen ist immer bei mir ein Spaziergang angesagt/an der Reihe.

They should be kept. In the first clause, you can also say nach dem Essen, which makes the eating a more regular occurrence ("after one of my regular daily meal(s)")

(After my meal it comes always then a walk.)

That doesn't sound like idiomatic English at all. If you want to use come, maybe say it this way:
After my meal always comes a walk.
Again, native speakers please comment whether that usage of come is okay or whether this is interference from German on my side..

[Linguoboy]

That's a bullshit correction...

Wow, I never expect our gentleman Hans will talk this way from when he started correcting my German. XD
(Did I use/Am I using "from when" correctly this time?)

Nope.

Honestly, it's not a very common a means of conjoining sentences in English. I guess my previous explanation didn't help at all so I'm going to try presenting some real-life examples instead:

1. If you have COVID-19, you can pass on the virus to other people for up to 10 days from when your infection starts. [Referencing a time period starting with the infection and lasting up to ten days.]
2. Among Boomers, support for marijuana legalization now surpasses levels from when they were young (50% today vs. 43% in 1973). [Contrasting the level of support from one time period to the level from a previous time period.]
3. USF students still fighting to get back fees from when pandemic closed campus. [The fees originated with a particular time period in the past and--in some sense--still exist, because they can potentially be refunded.]

What you're saying above is that you formed a certain impression of H-W when he started correcting your German and that impression has now changed. That sort of statement doesn't fit naturally into a "from when" type of construction.

(After my meal it comes always then a walk.)

That doesn't sound like idiomatic English at all. If you want to use come, maybe say it this way:
After my meal always comes a walk.
Again, native speakers please comment whether that usage of come is okay or whether this is interference from German on my side..

Oh, I didn't realise this was an attempt at idiomatic English. I thought azhong was doing that thing where you gloss a sentence literally before providing a more natural translation.

Your suggestion is at least grammatical, H-W, but it's so stilted I had to think about it a moment. It might work in formal literature but it sounds odd out of that context.

[hwhatting]

Your suggestion is at least grammatical, H-W, but it's so stilted I had to think about it a moment. It might work in formal literature but it sounds odd out of that context.

Ok, thanks. I was afraid that it was something like that.

[azhong]

(After my meal it comes always then a walk.)

How about
After my meal it always comes a walk then.
After my meal it's always followed by a walk then.

Wow, I never expect our gentleman Hans will talk this way from when he started correcting my German.

What you're saying above is that you formed a certain impression of H-W when he started correcting your German and that impression has now changed. That sort of statement doesn't fit naturally into a "from when" type of construction.

How about if I mean I formed a certain impression of H-W from a previous time period, and the impression still lasts although I have heard one unusual response from him now. Does the two expressions okay?
1. I expect Hans to always talk gently from when he started correcting my German.
2. I never expect Hans to talk with words like that from when [he started correcting my German].
3. I have the impression that Hans won't talk that way from when [he started correcting my German].
4. I never have the expectation that Hans will talk that way from when [he started correcting my German].
- an impression/expectation from when ...

[Travis B.]

How about if I mean I formed a certain impression of H-W from a previous time period, and the impression still lasts although I have heard one unusual response from him now. Does the two expressions okay?
1. I expect Hans to always talk gently from when he started correcting my German.
2. I never expect Hans to talk with words like that from when [he started correcting my German].
3. I have the impression that Hans won't talk that way from when [he started correcting my German].
4. I never have the expectation that Hans will talk that way from when [he started correcting my German].
- an impression/expectation from when ...

I would use when rather than from when in these sentences because it is qualifying a verb phrase rather than a noun phrase, and I would use the same tense after it as in the verb phrase being qualified, i.e. started does not sound right here.

[azhong]

1. I expect Hans to always talk gently from when he started correcting my German.
2. I never expect Hans to talk with words like that from when [he started correcting my German].
3. I have the impression that Hans won't talk that way from when [he started correcting my German].
4. I never have the expectation that Hans will talk that way from when [he started correcting my German].
- an impression/expectation from when ...

...

Thank you for your response, Travis. Is this what you meant?

I would use when rather than from when in [both] these [first two] sentences because it is qualifying a verb phrase ["to expect"] rather than a noun phrase [like "impression" or "expectation" in 3 and 4], and I would use the same tense after it as in the verb phrase being qualified, i.e. started does not sound right here [in the first two sentences].

Is my understanding correct? Or have I misunderstood your explanation? Honestly, I'm still quite confused about the usage of "from when". Could you please spend a bit more time and explain more for me?

To compare,
1. [An nightmare inspired by] the house from when I lived in ...
2. The expectation from when he started to ...

I think my sentence 3 and 4 have the same structure as your original sentence, so they should be grammatical? I.e., your comment is focusing on sentence 1 and 2, where I used the verb form "expect". You said they should be better
1. I (never) expect Hans ... when he starts ...

This way? Thank you.

[Travis B.]

1. I expect Hans to always talk gently from when he started correcting my German.
2. I never expect Hans to talk with words like that from when [he started correcting my German].
3. I have the impression that Hans won't talk that way from when [he started correcting my German].
4. I never have the expectation that Hans will talk that way from when [he started correcting my German].
- an impression/expectation from when ...

...

Thank you for your response, Travis. Is this what you meant?

I would use when rather than from when in [both] these [first two] sentences because it is qualifying a verb phrase ["to expect"] rather than a noun phrase [like "impression" or "expectation" in 3 and 4], and I would use the same tense after it as in the verb phrase being qualified, i.e. started does not sound right here [in the first two sentences].

Is my understanding correct? Or have I misunderstood your explanation? Honestly, I'm still quite confused about the usage of "from when". Could you please spend a bit more time and explain more for me?

To compare,
1. [An nightmare inspired by] the house from when I lived in ...
2. The expectation from when he started to ...

I think my sentence 3 and 4 have the same structure as your original sentence, so they should be grammatical? I.e., your comment is focusing on sentence 1 and 2, where I used the verb form "expect". You said they should be better
1. I (never) expect Hans ... when he starts ...

This way? Thank you.

I would personally favor from how over from when in these sentences when it is expect or have being qualified. In the case of expect I would not use from when whereas it sounds somewhat okay with have - however, in these sentences I would favor get over have as get emphasizes developing an impression from a cause whereas have emphasizes simply having an impression while not emphasizing developing an impression per se. From when with get I should state is a special case where from when works well with an VP, but even then I would still favor from how, as from how emphasizes the manner of the cause whereas from when emphasizes the event itself.

Also, I was confused by your sentences because I read them as if you were incorrectly qualifying the verb talk with from when rather than when - and while from when typically refers to a past event or state (e.g. when qualifying an NP or get), when by itself normally refers to a future event referred to with the non-past (rather than the future or the prospective).

I do not really know your intention with these sentences, which are important with respect to how I would correct them, so I am going to give two different sets of modified versions that depend on your intention:

This first set relates to the reason one has the expectation or impression:

1. I expect [Hans to always talk gently] [from how he started correcting my German].
2. I never expect [Hans to talk with words like that] [from how he started correcting my German].
3. I get the impression [that Hans won't talk that way] [from how he started correcting my German].
4. I never get the expectation [that Hans will talk that way] [from how he started correcting my German].

This second set relates to the time of the expected event event:

1. I expect [Hans to always talk gently [when he starts correcting my German]].
2. I never expect [Hans to talk with words like that [when he starts correcting my German]].
3. I have the impression [that Hans won't talk that way [when he starts correcting my German]].
4. I never have the expectation [that Hans will talk that way [when he starts correcting my German]].

[Linguoboy]

(After my meal it comes always then a walk.)

How about
After my meal it always comes a walk then.
After my meal it's always followed by a walk then.

Both ungrammatical. What does the "it" there refer to? It looks like it should be "meal", but then "After my meal it's always followed by a walk then" is redundant then since to follow means to come after; why not just say "My meal is always followed by a walk"? The "then" is also completely superfluous. Another possible reworking is "After my meal a walk always follows." This is a bit formal, but at least it makes sense.

[Zju]

Probably a long shot, but does anyone know how did Proto-Germanic *ajjō 'eggs' become Proto-West Germanic *aijiʀu 'id.'? Going off wiktionary here:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstr ... manic/ajją
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstr ... rmanic/aij

I guess I'm ultimately curious why German has Eier instead of *Eie or sth, given that the PIE neuter plural ending is *-eh₂.