German questions

[hwhatting]

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. That's still how I write it, and I actually am not sure whether it's the same in the new orthography or if it is capitalised like you have it. Maybe some of the young ones on the board who went to school after the reform can tell...

[Linguoboy]

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. That's still how I write it, and I actually am not sure whether it's the same in the new orthography or if it is capitalised like you have it. Maybe some of the young ones on the board who went to school after the reform can tell...

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

(Da ich kein deutscher Muttersprachler bin, benutzt ich lieber gefundene Beispiele, statt meine eignen zu erstellen. Auf dieser Weise kann mir mindestens die Schuld nicht zugeschoben werden, wenn sie Fehler enthalten!
Since I'm not a fluent native speaker, I prefer to use found examples rather than creating my own. At least that way if there are errors, I can't be blamed for them!)

[Travis B.]

I saw Hilbert's "Wir müssen wissen — Wir werden wissen" translated into English as "We must know — We shall know." (I have also seen it translated with will as well.) Is this actually a correct translation? dict.cc translates StG werden as both English will and English shall, but to me English will and shall have distinctly different meanings. Yes, in English historically, particularly EngE shall was often treated as a first-person variant upon will, but in NAE synchronically will is a more pure future tense and has a stronger, more definite meaning than shall, which often has implications of suggestion, wishing, or prospective aspect. In this context, which would you think would be a better translation of werden here in contemporary NAE, will or shall? (I should also note that translating it as shall rather than will weakens Hilbert's statement here for me.)

[hwhatting]

(Da ich kein deutscher Muttersprachler bin, benutze ich lieber gefundene Beispiele, statt meine eignen zu erstellen. Auf dieser Weise kann mir mindestens die Schuld nicht zugeschoben werden, wenn sie Fehler enthalten!
Since I'm not a fluent native speaker, I prefer to use found examples rather than creating my own. At least that way if there are errors, I can't be blamed for them!)

[azhong]

Do you still remember this corection, H.W.?

...Manchmal ärgere ich mich über seine Worte, aber ich versuche, meinen Ärger*1) zu bändigen, denn wir sind Freunde.
(...Sometimes I get angry at his words, but I try to restrain my anger, for we're friends.)

*1) Wut is much stronger than Ärger; as you chose sich ärgern in the preceding clause, you also should use Ärger here.

I'm confused now for I've received a different advice. I've post a sentence-making practice in LEO German forum, where I wrote,
Damals ärgerte ich mich wirklich sehr, aber ich versuchte, meinen Ärger zu bändigen.
And then I received the advice (from Jesse_Pinkman in #6 of that webpage):

Im Deutschen (mehr als im Englischen) versucht man, Wortwiederholungen zu vermeiden. Nachdem Du "ärgern" schon im ersten Satzteil verwendet hast, könntest Du im zweiten Teil etwas anderes benutzen, z.B.: Zorn / Ungehaltenheit / Wut.

What you two have said sounds completely opposite to me. What's the matter, please? Thank you.

[hwhatting]

In short - it's a difference in taste, and in matters of taste, there is no right or wrong.
If I have to choose between precision and avoidance of repetition, I choose precision. Your commenter on LEO chooses differently.
Of course, I find my taste is superior and you should do as I recommend

[azhong]

Two questions in this passage quoted from an e-book I found in the internet, with its original English text placed in "more".

Wir haben nicht immer in der Mango Street gewohnt. Vorher wohnten wir in der Loomis im zweiten Stock, und davor in der Keeler. Vor der Keeler war es die Paulina, und an noch vorher kann ich mich nicht erinnern. (Das Haus in der Mango Street)

More: show

(We didn't always live on Mango Street.
Before that we lived on Loomis on the third floor,
and before that we lived on Keeler.
Before Keeler it was Paulina,
and before that I can't remember. (The House on Mango Street (1984) by Sandra Cisneros.)

Q: Both vorher and davor means "before". Are they synonyms and always interchangeable everywhere?
Q: Is the term an noch vorher has any problem to you? One cyber-pal gave me another term "noch weiter zurück".

Thank you for your reply.

[hwhatting]

Q: Both vorher and davor means "before". Are they synonyms and always interchangeable everywhere?

One big difference is that vorher can be used only for time or sequences, while davor has no such limitations:
Meine Eltern leben in einem Fachwerkhaus. Davor steht ein Brunnen. (but not *Vorher steht ein Brunnen).
My parents live in a fretwork house. In front of that is a fountain.
Der Zug fährt bis Berlin. Ihr müsst eine Station davor / vorher aussteigen.
The Train goes to Berlin. You have to get off one stop before.

Q: Is the term an noch vorher has any problem to you? One cyber-pal gave me another term "noch weiter zurück".

an noch vorher is colloquial / casual, noch weiter zurück is more literary (but not so literary that you wouldn't hear it in everyday speech).

[azhong]

Edit:
I guess I've known the answer.
- Rule 1: as if + Konj II
- Rule 2: when it's "as if + present simple tense" (like the first sentence), where there is no Konj II, Konj I is used.
- Three patterns for "as if": als wenn, als ob, or als + V.CONJ
===

„Es klingt so, als seist du jetzt überhaupt nicht hungrig.“
It sounds as if you're.CONJ-I.PRES not hungry at all now.
„Es klingt so, als würdest du später kein Mittagessen mehr brauchen. “
"It sounds as if you won't have to.CONJ-II.FUT-I eat lunch later. "

Could you please tell me more about the sentence pattern "as if"?

The "seist" in the former sentence shows it's definitely of Konjunctiv I form. The grammar page says the Konjunctiv I form is mainly used in newspapers and journals when a person's words are quoted and changed into indirect narration.
Q: Why is the Konjunctiv mode used in the "as if" sentence pattern?

And then the latter sentence. According to your corrections, you are using Konjunctiv II- Future I form.
Q: Why isn't it the same Konjunctiv I- Future I form? Why are different Konjunctiv modes used for the same "as if" sentences in different tenses? And what if "as if" goes with past tense or past perfect tense? E.g.:

It sounded as if you didn't know.
It sounded as if he had never been there.

Thank you.

[hwhatting]

Edit:
I guess I've known the answer.
- Rule 1: as if + Konj II
- Rule 2: when it's "as if + present simple tense" (like the first sentence), where there is no Konj II, Konj I is used.
- Three patterns for "as if": als wenn, als ob, or als + V.CONJ
===

„Es klingt so, als seist du jetzt überhaupt nicht hungrig.“
It sounds as if you're.CONJ-I.PRES not hungry at all now.
„Es klingt so, als würdest du später kein Mittagessen mehr brauchen. “
"It sounds as if you won't have to.CONJ-II.FUT-I eat lunch later. "

Could you please tell me more about the sentence pattern "as if"?

The "seist" in the former sentence shows it's definitely of Konjunctiv I form. The grammar page says the Konjunctiv I form is mainly used in newspapers and journals when a person's words are quoted and changed into indirect narration.
Q: Why is the Konjunctiv mode used in the "as if" sentence pattern?

The use of Konjunktiv is a big mess, because there are the rules of literary German which most people don't really know how to use anymore, and the rules of colloquial German, which more and more intrude in the written register.
„Es klingt so, als seist du jetzt überhaupt nicht hungrig.“ - That is literary German. Most People nowadays actually would say and write als wärst du.

And then the latter sentence. According to your corrections, you are using Konjunctiv II- Future I form.
Q: Why isn't it the same Konjunctiv I- Future I form? Why are different Konjunctiv modes used for the same "as if" sentences in different tenses?

„Es klingt so, als würdest du später kein Mittagessen mehr brauchen. “ Outside of indirect speech, you don't use the Konjunktive I of the Future, even in literary German.
The "classical" rule is that when the form for Konjunktiv I is the same as the Indicative, they are replaced by Konjunktiv II. That means that for most verbs, only the 3rd person sg. of Konjunktiv I is still in use. It also means that often, people aren't sure what the correct Konjunktiv I form is, and they either don't use it at all and replace it be the Indicative (e.g. in indirect speech), or they use Konjunktiv II throughout.

And what if "as if" goes with past tense or past perfect tense? E.g.:
It sounded as if you didn't know.
It sounded as if he had never been there.

In literary German, the first would be als wenn du es nicht wüsstest; the second would be either als wenn er nie dort gewesen sei (accepting the possibility) or wäre (doubting). In colloquial German, it would be als wenn er nie dort gewesen ist / war (accepting the possibility) or wäre (doubting).
But as this is a part of the German language that is "on the move", it may be a good idea to also get the opinions of other native German speakers on this matter.

[azhong]

Es klingt so, als denkest* denkst du, dass ich dein Messer nicht hätte verwenden sollen**.
It sounds as if you think that I shouldn't have used your knife.

[*]Q: Just to make sure: I was using "denkest", the Konjutiv-I form. Is it wrong here?
[**]Q: I don't understand why the word order is so. Are the sentence in bold (from Google Translate) correct?
Ich habe dein Messer verwendet.
Ich soll dein Messer nicht verwenden.
Ich hätte dein Messer nicht verwenden sollen.
(I shouldn't have used your knife.

If it's correct, shouldn't it be then
"...dass ich dein Messer nicht verwenden sollen hätte"?
("Hätte" is the verb of the subordinate clause and follows the "verb last" rule.)

Thank you.

[hwhatting]

Es klingt so, als denkest* denkst du, dass ich dein Messer nicht hätte verwenden sollen**.
It sounds as if you think that I shouldn't have used your knife.

[*]Q: Just to make sure: I was using "denkest", the Konjutiv-I form. Is it wrong here?

I guess the reason is that for most verbs all Konjunktiv I forms except 3rd person singular are so rarely used that they Sound too weird, and that's why Elf replaced it with the Indicative form.

[**]Q: I don't understand why the word order is so. Are the sentence in bold (from Google Translate) correct?
Ich habe dein Messer verwendet.
Ich soll dein Messer nicht verwenden.
Ich hätte dein Messer nicht verwenden sollen.
(I shouldn't have used your knife.

These are correct.

If it's correct, shouldn't it be then
"...dass ich dein Messer nicht verwenden sollen hätte"?
("Hätte" is the verb of the subordinate clause and follows the "verb last" rule.)

That would mean logic is applicable to German. Big mistake
Seriously, these constructions with compound tenses of modal verbs plus infinitives behave in their own way.
Of the three permutations.
(1)… hätte verwenden sollen
(2) … verwenden hätte sollen
(3) … verwenden sollen hätte,
none is totally ungrammatical, but (1) is the most favoured and (2) is still favoured over (3).

[azhong]

Heute habe ich den Satz gelesen:

Als ich noch jünger war, hat mich meine große Schwester oft geärgert.

Daher habe ich eine Frage um Wortstellung:
Q: Welche Satz ist auf Deutsch üblicher?
1. Meine große Schwester hat mich oft geärgert.
2. Mich hat meine große Schwester oft geärgert.

Hierzu dieselbe Frage / Hier dasselbe:

Wenn sie mir bloß eine Chance gegeben hätte!
(If she had only given me a chance!

Q: Die gleiche Frage wie oben.
3. Sie hat mir bloß eine Chance gegeben.
4. Mir hat sie bloß eine Chance gegeben.

Danke schön.

[hwhatting]

Daher habe ich eine Frage zur Wortfolge:

1. Meine große Schwester hat mich oft geärgert.
2. Mich hat meine große Schwester oft geärgert.

1) is more neutral; in 2) the emphasis is on mich, e.g. Habt ihr Erfahrung damit, dass Geschwister einen ärgern? - Ja, mich hat meine große Schwester oft geärgert.

Von diesem auch:

What do you want to say here?

Wenn sie mir bloß eine Chance gegeben hätte!
(If she had only given me a chance!
Die gleiche Frage:
3. Sie hat mir bloß eine Chance gegeben.
4. Mir hat sie bloß eine Chance gegeben.

Again 3) is neutral, 4) underlines mir by fronting, e.g. for contrast: Dir verzeiht sie alles, was du machst. Mir hat sie bloß eine Chance gegeben.

[azhong]

Ein andere Frage: Ich habe die Sätze gelesen:

Ich weiß, dass "gar nichts" keine Entsprechung ist von "nothing".
Ich wurde informiert, dass A besser ist als B ...

Q: It seems the "verb-last" rule for a dass-clause is not the only grammatical one? What's the new rule, please?

Thank you.

[Raphael]

Hmmm. Not sure how to describe it. For the record, the first sentence seems kinda wrong to me, while the second seems perfectly ok.

[Linguoboy]

Hmmm. Not sure how to describe it. For the record, the first sentence seems kinda wrong to me, while the second seems perfectly ok.

In this second case, it's because als is a conjunction, not a preposition, so the syntax of the first subordinate clause is still verb-last. (If you wanted to expand the last elliptical clause, it would be "Ich wurde informiert, dass A besser ist als B ist.")

Azhong, if these are sentences you're finding on the web or someplace, it would be helpful to give us citations. In some cases, the answer might be as simple as the author not being a completely fluent speaker.

[hwhatting]

Ein andere Frage: Ich habe die Sätze gelesen:

Ich weiß, dass "gar nichts" keine Entsprechung ist von "nothing".
Ich wurde informiert, dass A besser ist als B ...

Linguoboy already has covered the second sentence. The first is a construction you get quite frequently in spoken German; parts that are not absolutely necesary for the completeness of the clause can be put behind the verb, if the rest is a valid clause:

Ich weiß, dass "gar nichts" keine Entsprechung von "nothing" ist
(1) -> Ich weiß, dass "gar nichts" keine Entsprechung ist (valid clause) -> Ich weiß, dass "gar nichts" keine Entsprechung ist von "nothing".

But:
(2) -> *Ich weiß, dass keine Entsprechung von "nothing" ist. -> *Ich weiß, dass keine Entsprechung von "nothing" ist "gar nichts".
(3) -> *Ich weiß, dass "gar nichts" ist. -> *Ich weiß, dass "gar nichts" ist keine Entsprechung von "nothing".

Other examples:
Ich weiß, dass er heute zuhause ist -> Ich weiß, dass er zuhause ist heute.
Ich sehe, dass du die Tabletten gegen Kopfschmerzen genommen hast. -> Ich sehe, dass du die Tabletten genommen hast gegen Kopfschmerzen.
Er sagt, dass er gestern am See spazieren war. -> Er sagt, dass er gestern spazieren war am See.

This is actually a nice test to distinguish obligatory from non-obligatory clause constituents. As this is a part of colloquial German, some speakers will be more okay with the examples than others.

[Travis B.]

Ein andere Frage: Ich habe die Sätze gelesen:

Ich weiß, dass "gar nichts" keine Entsprechung ist von "nothing".
Ich wurde informiert, dass A besser ist als B ...

Linguoboy already has covered the second sentence. The first is a construction you get quite frequently in spoken German; parts that are not absolutely necesary for the completeness of the clause can be put behind the verb, if the rest is a valid clause:

[snip]

Das hatte ich gar nicht gewusst.
I hadn't known that at all.

[azhong]

Von diesem auch:

What do you want to say here?

Something like,
"Also from about this sentence I have the same question: Which expression is more common?

Based on / concerning / about this sentence I have the same question.

"Wenn sie mir bloß eine Chance gegeben hätte!"

Vielleicht sollte ich "auch von dem (Satz)" sagen?

Zu diesem Satz / über diesen Satz / bezüglich dieses Satzes / mit Bezug auf diesen Satz / basierend auf diesem Satz / auf Grundlage dieses Satzes habe ich dieselbe Frage.
For the shortened version, I'd go with hierzu dieselbe Frage or hier dasselbe