![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
General:
<1>Q: This page is getting pretty long, it should be split up!
A: There will be a need for splitting up the topic when this article grows. Actually it should be done right now.
<2>Q: I found a mistake!
A: Correct it
<3>Q: The style is cruel!
A: Improve it!
<4>Q: There is something wrong, a native speaker would never speak like that!
A: If you are sure, correct it, please.
<5>Q: You should explain what a/an adjective/noun/adverb/preposition is!
A: No, imagine Italian grammar, French grammar, Japanese grammar et cetera with the same explanations. The same stuff a hundred times. Only facts specific for German should be explained here.
<6>Q: I want a tutorial!
A: This is not a tutorial.
<7>Q: Ich kann Deutsch.
A: Dann hilf uns! ;)
Specific:
<8>Q: Why "possessive article" and "demonstrative article"?
A: I know that terms like "dieser" or "seines" are "officially" called pronouns. But they behave actually like articles, and these Wikipedia-articles would turn unnecessarily complicated, if you called them pronouns. Maybe there is a term applicable to both articles and pronouns used as articles.
<9>Q: Why is _the complete_ conjugation not in German Grammar: Verbs?
A:The Conjugations of Perfekt, Plusquamperfekt, Futur I & II include the construction of sentences. So I decided to put the Conjugation in "verbs". I regard this structure as more logical.
<10>Q: My question regards your discussion of the German case system. Ancient Greek shows case through noun/adjective suffixes just as Latin. To me German is no more comparable to Ancient Greek than Latin. Can you justify the comment? NovemberDecember (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)NovemberDecemberReply
Discussion Section
<1>:
overview and OTOH too short for a real grammar.
<3>
<4>
<6>
<9>
In German, is the German word for "he" commonly masculine or commonly generic?? 66.245.12.170 22:27, 25 May 2004 (UTC)Reply
Masculine: "Es ist ein Er" (=it is a he = it is a boy). "Ein" could also signify neutral grammatical gender, but an ER in capitals just does not feel neutral at all ;-) All nouns and pronouns that refer to human beings and all pronouns that refer to animals (often also nouns that refer to animals) are masculine or feminine depending on the sex of the person/animal. Exception: If the noun ends in "-chen" or "-lein" (like in Mädchen, Fräulein=girl), it is a diminutive that is always neuter. Therefore, a girl is a grammatical "it" in German (literally: "The girl wears white shoes. It loves them"). Nevertheless, often "sie" (she) is used as a pronoun for Mädchen ("She loves them") in order to avoid the impression that a girl is a liveless thing. Another exception: Kind (=child) is always neuter, be it a boy or a girl. However, Junge (boy) is always masculine. Also, all other masculine nouns are referred to as "er" (he). "Der Mann kaufte einen Stuhl. Er bezahlte ihn in bar" (literally, "The man bought a chair. He paid him cash." -- The chair is a "he").
for consistency across this article (i.e. "Noun" instead of "Nomen oder Hauptwort"), I want to (and will presently) change all the grammatical names to their english equivalents.
I have made numerous style edits throughout this article. I have tried to make the English usage as correct as possible consistent within the article. There are still a few Latin grammatical terms in this article, but I don't know their English equivalents offhand (I'm not a grammarian).
Also, I replaced a number (maybe all?) of the tables with the so-called Wiki-td table syntax (see Help:Table). This form is more compact and (in my opinion) easier to read and manage than standard HTML syntax. I also used <th> and <caption> markup where appropriate in tables.
I think this article is now in better shape. Please drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions or comments Gwimpey 05:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ok, so tonight I rewrote some of the section on verbs, and I might have done a lot of questionable changes, but at least i included tables of preterite conjugation and an explanation as to which German verbs build the perfect with "haben" and which with "sein". And I miss them. Poccil, could you please explain why you didn't keep them?
--Kruemel 00:00, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Die Hütte des Stammeshäuptlings best translates as "the chief of the tribe's hut" because
Keep on looking for mistakes, though, because I'm sure I've made one somewhere! :-) Saintswithin 12:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I removed "über". It is more natural to use it, but it ruins the point of the example. It is supposed to show how an accusative without preposition or postposition can be used. Using a postposition here spoils everything.
The terms "genitive attribute" and "position" are generic and I'm not sure of their origin. Ladefoged in his book titled "Transformational Grammar" refers to these items as complements and adjuncts of noun phrases respectively.
In addition the term "genitive attribute" might be associated with what Ladefoged has termed attributives, which are adjectives and other prenominal adjuncts. Since complements are referred to by this article as attributes and linguists use the term attributive to describe what this article terms positions confusion could result.
I hate to say it, but this page looks like original research. Everything should be cited to reference books. --Stevage 13:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
I doubt that descriptions and examples fall under the header "original research". I can say full-heartedly that all of this came from some book some where.
This isn't really research anyway, these are examples of common occurances. We aren't exploring anything here that 80 million plus people don't already know to one degree or another. I think we can provide examples of german grammar without resorting to finding a quote for every single possible iteration...
I have completely rewritten the declension classes noun table, as I found it almost incomprehensible in its previous form. The biggest change is now instead of just showing a noun form as "-e", it's shown as, eg, "Berge". For reference here is the old table:
-(e)s, -e der Berg, des Berg(e)s, die Berge Nom. Acc. Dat. Gen. -0- -0- -(e) -(e)s -e -e -en -e -(e)s, -er das Bild, des Bild(e)s, die Bilder -0- -0- -(e) -(e)s -er -er -ern -er -(e)s, -en der Staat, des Staat(e)s, die Staaten -0- -0- -(e) -(e)s -en -en -en -en -s, -0- der Fahrer, des Fahrers, die Fahrer -0- -0- -0- -s -0- -0- -n -0- -s, -e der Lehrling, des Lehrlings, die Lehrlinge -0- -0- -0- -s -e -e -en -e -s, -s das Radio, des Radios, die Radios -0- -0- -0- -s -s -s -s -s -en, -en der Student, des Studenten, die Studenten -0- -en -en -en -en -en -en -en -0-, -0- die Mutter, der Mutter, die Mütter -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -n -0- -0-, -en die Meinung, der Meinung, die Meinungen -0- -0- -0- -0- -en -en -en -en -0-, -e die Kraft, der Kraft, die Kräfte -0- -0- -0- -0- -e -e -en -e -0-, -s die Gang, der Gang, die Gangs -0- -0- -0- -0- -s -s -s -s -(e)ns, -(e)n der Name, des Namens, die Namen -0- -(e)n -(e)n -(e)ns -(e)n -(e)n -(e)n -(e)n
It would be great if someone could check this, as I don't actually speak German at all. I suspect it's wrong for mutter and krafte (something to do with ablaut - I know nothing), and for name - is nameen really possible?
All comments welcome. Stevage 19:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
I've made a change to explain a small class of verbs better. Those whose prefixes can be either separable or inseparable depend on whether the speaker intends the literal or figurative meaning. I've provided a new example that anyone with a year or two of studies can understand: "Bitte wiederholen Sie das," vs. "Bitte holen Sie das wieder." This should convey a better understanding in about the same space as the former version. Regards, Durova 03:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Since "im" and "ins" are usually used instead of "in dem" and "in das", respectively, the sentence "Ich schlafe in dem Haus" rather conveys the impression that the person sleeps in a particular house. --Markus (Mh26) 22:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
I've added the convention about time, place, and manner to the subordinate clause section. Durova 23:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
"Strong inflection is used:
but a few paragraphs later...
"Weak inflection
The weak inflection is used when there is is a definite word in place (der, die, das, den, dem, des, jed-, jen-, manch-, dies-, solch- and welch-). The definite word has provided most of the necessary information, so the adjective endings are simpler."
Not being a German speaker myself, I don't know which is correct, but surely not both? Tennin 16:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Other sites seemed to support the second passage, so I went ahead and changed the article (moving "After manch- ..." to the weak section) figuring that someone informed can always revert/clarify if this is incorrect. Tennin 19:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
It depends on whether the modifier carries the strong ending itself
manch weiser Mann mancher weise Mann
many a wise man
You have pretty much free choice between these usages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.89.179 (talk) 10:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I have begun the process of splitting it into several articles: German nouns, German verbs, German sentence structure. Ideally each of those sections in this article would still contain a basic overview of the topic, without going into too much detail. Then this article will end up as a concise overview of German grammar, and the subarticles will contain the detail. Would others like to continue the process of splitting? Stevage 22:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I noticed the following in the article:
NOT: Die Soldaten dessen Armee
Anyone know what this is associated with? I know it is incorrect (it should be Die Soldaten, deren Armee...etc.) but it isn't clear what it's trying to show. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 10:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hello everybody,
just a tiny correction:
"Mädchen", for example, is the diminutive form of an archaic feminine German noun die Magd, meaning "young woman"
It is this diminutive from of "die Maid", as well meaning "young woman". I'm just going to exchange the two occurrences of "Magd".
Oliver Uwira 09:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Mädchen entstand im 17. Jahrhundert aus Mägdchen, der Verkleinerungsform zu Magd
(ahd. magad, mhd. maget, daraus auch mhd. meit, nhd. Maid; idg. magho-s jung).
Als Diminutiv ist Mädchen sächlichen grammatikalischen Geschlechts; trotzdem folgt ein weiter
entfernt stehendes Pronomen oft dem biologischen Geschlecht: »Silke war ein aufgeschlossenes
Mädchen, das guten Kontakt zu seinen Kameradinnen fand. Besonders bemühte sie sich auch um ihre
Schwester.« (Beispiel aus Duden, Band 9) [1]
I think there is a little misstake in the comment on "die Magd". The meaning of "Magd" as a young woman may be rarely used today, but "Magd" as a special word for a femal, unmarried person working on a farm it is still in use, especially in Bavaria, so I concluse that the expression should be changed into "rarely used in this context/meaning today" Unfortunately, I am not registered in the english Wikipedia, so you must be lucky with Grami
Magd = maiden--139.30.128.76 (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
It would be great if somone could make an infobox linking the different topics together. Just something which links to German grammar, German verbs, German nouns and so forth - there are about 10 such articles. It could then be placed at the top of each of these articles to make it easier to navigate around. I'm just a bit busy atm. Stevage 13:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
What is the plural of kümmel?Cameron Nedland 21:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hello, here is Christoph,a native speaker from Germany. Sorry, my english isn´t perfect, but I hope you understand me. Since a few weeks I am "surfing" in the english version of wikipedia to read something interesting about Germany and german persons from your sight. I read your discussion about Kümmel.
Kümmel is uncountable. It´s like "Salz" oder "Zucker".
I guess you mean『Kümmerling』with the Schnaps. The plural of this word is『Kümmerling』too:
Ich habe gestern 1 Kümmerling getrunken (Yesterday I was drinking one Kümmerling (or something like that))
Ich habe gestern 10 Kümmerling getrunken. (Yesterday I was drinking (I drunk?) ten Kümmerling.
NOT: Kümmerlinge oder Kümmerlings
In the german version of wikipedia my name is Christoph Radtke
You can't compare『Kümmel』to "Wasser" because Kümmel IS countable. "Ein Kümmel" is one corn of the sort of spice called "Kümmel". "Salz" does have a countable plural, too("Salze", meaning minerals and stuff...). It's just that Kümmel's plural is the same as its singular nominative form, just like "der Himmel" (= 1.the sky 2.Heaven).
"Wasser" does have a plural ("Gewässer") but it's not countable, same goes with "Geld" (money) and "Gelder" ("moneys", when you're talking about census and the like). It does have a plural but not a countable one and its plural can actually change the meaning of its singular form.1stLtLombardi 17:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
The endings of genitive pronouns change with the gender, number and case of the noun in whose place they stand, in the same way genitive adjectives' endings change with the case of the noun the modify. Eg. "Ich mag meinen Vater," as opposed to "Mein Vater mag mich." The table in the section "pronouns" should at least make a note of this when discussing genitive pronouns, right now it seems that all genitive pronouns and adjectives end in "er" in all scenarios. Not all need to be listed in that particular table, but a note should be made and a link given to a table that lists all forms of possesive pronouns, or at least the indefinite article, which follow the same pattern. As a reference, I am using:
I know that『Mädchen』is an often used example for a "wrongly" used gender, but in my opinion, it's a quite irritating one. In fact, the diminutive terms "-lein" and "-chen" will turn every word into a neuter, regardless of its original neuter. "Das Haus {n}" -> "Das Häuschen {n}", "Der Herr {m}" -> "Das Herrchen {n}" or "Die Magd {f}" -> "Das Mägdchen/Mädchen {n}". That doesn't make a word lose its original neuter. Maybe someone with better English skills than me wants to point that out in the article. --213.196.193.62 12:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
No idea how to use this page, so please excuse any mistakes... There are plenty of examples for "wrong" genders, as "das Weib" (woman) is neutral (sächlich), while "die Sache" (thing, case) ist female (weiblich).
That's true and I changed it. It is "das Weib" and "die Frau" which both means woman, but "Weib" is more deprecative. "die Sache" is right.
I think this article needs an extreme makeover wikipedia edition. I compared it with random grammar articles like Danish grammar, Spanish grammar, Japanese grammar, Italian grammar and Russian grammar. The layout of this article is ridiculous. Thoughts, anybody? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
The example is strange, since it does not explain why 5 (fünf) is not a good choice for a conjunction with einige. "... If the number is not very high, it is usually not combined with an indefinite plural article like "einige" or "mehrere". ... NOT:『Einige fünf Äpfel』BUT:『Einige Äpfel』or『Fünf Äpfel』(some apples, five apples) ..."
It is not less strange to say: Einige tausenddreihundertvierundzwanzig Äpfel. The point is, a cardinal number after "einige" is supposed to show the coarse order of magnitude. That is usually done with round lots (100,1000,10000...) or common quantities like Dutzend (dozen). Ex: Einige tausend Menschen. 77.178.128.213 (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
The Dative and Accusative subsections under Grammar/Cases are empty. I will not try to fix it because my knowledge of the German language is still very very limited). --Gustgr (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
What do the letters in brackets signify? Why are there two columns in the table? (I know, singular vs. plural, but plurals have not been introduced yet at this point in the article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.158.242 (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Should it not be 'Tisch(e)s' in the third example as well? If it can't be omitted, clarification is justified. Also, shouldn't it be 'der Tisch' at the end of the last one? Alfakol (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Der Fisch gab dem Fisch(e) den Fisch des Fisch(e)s. a.s.o.--139.30.128.76 (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
The heading seems bare for this article. Should some general be added at the top for the main points in German grammar? Captain Gamma (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
The example attempting to help explain case goes like this:
"In a sentence (using only one noun for understanding purposes):
Der Tisch gab dem Tisch(e) des Tisch(e)s den Tisch.
The table gave the table of the table the table."
Now if I made the following modifications:
"Der A gab dem B des C den D."
(nom A, dat B, gen C, acc D)
then would the English be
"The A gave the B of the C the D" as in "A gave C's B to D"?
I thought that the genitive noun possessed the accusative noun, and that in this situation the nominative would be giving the accusative to the dative and not vice versa.
But if the example is correct, then that means that the nominative directly affects the dative instead of the accusative and that the genitive possesses the dative instead of the accusative...
Would anyone care to help explain this to me? Thanks.
Btw I think having different nouns in the example rather than them being all the same (der Tisch) would greatly clarify things for readers.
YoshiroShin (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
The first one is right!84.170.172.182 (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
The whole example is very confusing to me (I am a native speaker!). I suggest to make another example with different nones:
Der Mann (the man)
Der Junge (the boy)
Der Knochen (the bone)
Der Hund (the dog)
These nones have all the same gramatical gender (male) and so the article, that shows the case, is the same.
Der Mann gibt dem Jungen den Konchen des Hundes.
The man gives the boy the bone of the dog.
This sentence is an example of how cases are used in German (and in every other language with grammatical case). This differs from English, where the word order in a sentence has more meaning. In German, because the function of each noun is not marked by its position within the sentence but by the declined articles — and in case of genitive and dative also by a suffix at the end of the noun itself — the German sentence could also be:
Der Mann gibt den Konchen des Hundes dem Jungen.
Den Knochen des Hundes gibt der Mann dem Jungen.
Dem Jungen gibt der Mann den Konchen des Hundes.
Dem Jungen gibt den Knochen des Hundes dem Jungen.
...
In these senteces is the clause: "den Konchen des Hundes" (the bone of the dog). The possessor is after the objetk he owns. But in the following senteces the objekt is after the possessor: "Des Hundes Knochen" (the dog's bone).
Der Mann gibt des Hundes Knochen dem Jungen.
Des Hundes Knochen gbit der Mann dem Jungen.
Dem Jungen gibt der Mann den Hundes Knochen.
...
Although some of these may sound exotic in modern day German, they are grammatically correct (and even rather unusual constructions are more regularly used in poetry). With a flexible word order like that it is very easy, for example, to put the most important part of a sentence in the front of the sentence.
Please comment my suggestion.84.170.172.182 (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Lori, kennst du meine Frau? Ja? Wer stellte euch vor? Lori, do you know my wife? Yeah? Who introduced you?
Just wondering, since "introduced" is in the past, shouldn't the last question be:
Wer hat euch vorgestellt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.144.86 (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
doesn't sound archaic to me in any way (though I admit that I haven't studied the matter), but just definitely wrong. Why should anybody get the idea to use a personal pronoun where a possessive pronoun fits? There have always been possessive pronouns as far as I know; I mean they were there in Latin and at least Middle High German. Yes, there is a personal pronoun genitive but no, it was and to some extent is used for different things. - As has been mentioned, there is no early High German. To me, this sounds as if somebody wanted to explain what these odd pers. pron. genitives are there for and figured something out. An answer would be: Prepositions, most of all. "Der Rindsbraten befindet sich innerhalb meiner", the roastbeef is located inside of me, may sound strange but can be constructed. A genitivus objectivus could be among things to think of; we might then say "die Liebe seiner", the love to him. But never for "his love".--93.133.221.14 (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
I came to this page for example like zu Hause, Stein im wege, etc. where -e is still used in fixed expressions with the dative. I was disappointed. Tibetologist (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
The author doesn't seem to known about the singular of measurement.
Both English and German have a singular of measurement.
It is not: a six-feet tall man, a three-inches gap, a five-pounds package, or a twenty-four bottles case.
It is a six-foot tall man, a three-inch gap, a five-pound package and a twenty-four bottle case.
In the sentence, "He had three six-inch boards," "inch" is singular because it is a measurement and "boards" is plural because it is a quantity. The six-inch wide board is six inches wide, and a six-foot tall man is six feet tall.
In German, but not English, the singular of measurement is used after a bare number. English six glasses of beer for three euros comes out Sechs Glas Bier für drei Euro — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenWC (talk • contribs) 20:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
'das Weib (old, regional or anthropological: woman)' I am a native speaker and I have to say that this usage note is not entirely correct. I agree on old and regional, but I don't really undertand what 'anthropological' does mean here. Anyhow, there is no contemporary anthropologist that uses the word 'Weib'. This is because it is widely considered to be both colloquial and pejorative. (It's comparable to the English word 'broad', at least if you don't mind the historical usage.) All things considered, I suggest to change the usage note to (old, regional or pejorative) --Letkhfan (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hi. I'm from Bonn. I didn't want to change the article because I suppose there may be regional differences. But I'd have to disagree with the statement that using a possessive dative in spoken language causes "embarassment especially among educated speakers". Here in the Rhineland, a possessive dative would never cause embarassment among less-educated people, not even most educated people except pedantic ones.
One must also distinguish two constructions. The first one is dem + noun + sein (dem Peter sein Vater), which is frowned upon a little and sometimes avoided. But dem sein (without noun) instead of dessen is absolutely common usage here. For example: Du kennst doch den Peter? – Ja. – Dem sein Vater ist kürzlich gestorben. It would actually be much more curious to use dessen in a sentence like this. Well. I wonder what people from other regions think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.40.134.229 (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
At its current state, the lead section has multiple issues:
I have tried to address these issues by:
I personally think it's much better now than before. I also think there is still work to be done. 188.169.229.30 (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm trying to get my head around that sentence. I am a native English speaker trying to learn German. I note a suggestion from someone above to replace it with Der Mann (the man) Der Junge (the boy) Der Knochen (the bone) Der Hund (the dog)
I think this would be a good idea, but it does not fully explain the situation. This is alluded to here, but not resolved completely.
Firstly, if you exclude the genitive, then it appears to me that word order in German will make no difference. So you could have:
Which of these are valid sentences? (I don't know if I have placed the verb correctly or if the ending should be changed.) Regardless, it seems to me that all of these would still mean the man is giving the bone to the boy.
However, once you add a genitive, 3 possible situations could be formed:
OK, context determines everything, but I am guessing word order matters here in German, and it has to be possible to express all 3 of these situations in German. If this article is going to include this type of sentence, I think it also needs to include an explanation of the issue I have raised here.
I hope a native German speaker can explain this to readers and I am happy to update the article if you are not sure about the English side of things. 78.148.151.157 (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I am a native speaker. In your first example, you put the verb at the wrong place in a couple of places. All the permutations of the noun phrases are possible:
Der Mann gibt dem Jungen den Knochen Der Mann gibt den Knochen dem Junden Den Knochen gibt der Mann dem Jungen Den Knochen gibt dem Jungen der Mann Dem Jungen gibt der Mann den Knochen Dem Jungen gibt den Knochen der Mann
The genitive comes after the noun it refers to.
Der Mann gibt dem Jungen den Knochen des Hundes Der Mann gibt den Knochen des Hundes dem Jungen Den Knochen des Hundes gibt der Mann dem Jungen
and so on...
All meaning: The man is the giving the boy the dog's bone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.89.179 (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
My German is very limited so I may be wrong, but the sentence:
Mean's that: "|the table|(sub.) gave |the table|(dir. obj.) to |the table of the table|(ind. obj.)". But the other five:
All mean that: "|the table|(sub.) gave |the table of the table|(dir. obj.) to |the table|(ind. obj.)".
I am basing this on the assumption that (at least in cases where there would be ambiguity) the genitive "latches on" to the noun directly preceding it, or else is used in place of an article. I.e. "der/den/dem Tisch[e] des Tisch(e)s" or "des Tisch(e)s Tisch[e]" but not "des Tisch(e)s der/den/dem Tisch[e]". If I am wrong then none of the sentences can be translated with any certainty about whether the genitive table possesses the subject, the direct object or the indirect object.
If the offending sentence is replaced with the top one from the list of five then the problem is solved. And should it be felt that the remaining list is a little sparse thereafter with only four members, then the following Ersatz could (I think) be considered:
I am unwilling to make the changes myself, as I have only a very basic grasp of German grammar and way well be overlooking some clandestine nuance or other, but if anyone knows with certainty that what I have said above is true, please do correct it. And while your at it, you may want to drop in a sentence somewhere explaining that the added -e shown in brackets for the dative and genitive cases is archaic or whatever. R160K (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
>>"das Auto meines Vaters "my father's car" is likely to sound odd in colloquial speech<< - thats wrong! ... "das auto meines vaters" is totally fine (and correct, anyway) in "colloquial" german. A person saying this with using the dative-case will sound utterly stupid/illeducated, like some englishspeaker saying "aight": "meinem Vater sein Auto" - thats awful! ... as soon as one theres the task to use it in a sentence, it can differ, though, from this correct (!) usage. e.g. hardly anyone will say "meines Vaters Auto" (correct use of the genitive case), if the context requires this succession; in that instance many speakers will resort to the degenerated form "meinem Vater sein Auto" (dative case - allready sounding odd. more common in south-germany, as the article points out correctly) or right away "Auto von meinem Vater" (dative case). essentially: the given example stands out more, if its more worked into the sentence that is spoken (which may make it mandatory to change the order -> "meines Vaters Auto"; depending on how complicated the sentence is constructed), and less if its standing rather alone (e.g. in case of a short answer: who's car is it? - my father's car!: "das Auto meines Vaters!"). also note, that the decline of the genitive, though it can be traced back many hundred years, is much more an ongoing process than the article implies. just some years ago a [popular science (?)] book got published with the title "Der Dativ ist dem Genitiv sein Tod" (note that "dem genitiv sein Tod" is dative-case, while this would actually call for the genitive-case ("des Genitivs Tod")): "the dative[case] is the death of the genitive[case]". Its degeneration of our (I'm german) language IN PROCESS. People can very much understand the problem in this title, and still know that this is how many others actually speak. The higher a person is educated, the more its mandatory to still be able to fully apply the genitive (or atleast avoid the ill-use of the dative-case), what makes those, that come from regions with less practice in that usage, try to phrase sentences much different to avoid having to use the genitive-sense, to still make correct use of the other cases... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.25.125.78 (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hi.
This is just to say that I'm considering creating a completely new page for German prepositions, while not deleting the material here. I think that there's a need for a whole separate page as they really are a subject in themselves and deserve some examples, especially for ones like um that really don't sync directly to English words. Any comments on that please say. Blythwood (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
I came across a seven-year-old box indicating that the section on the nominative case still required expansion. Does it? As a German student, I found it rather complete. --XndrK (talk | contribs) 15:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hi all. I think it would be good to add a section on syntax. To start, it might make sense to expand the section named "sentence". That section mentions that phrases are regularly inverted for both questions and subordinate phrases. Some examples of inversion would be helpful. Also, it would be good to add a section that describes "default" sentence structure. (Earlier in the article it mentions that the sentence structure is flexible because of cases, but I assume some structures are more common than others?) There are probably some other things that could be added, but I think this might be a good start. :) JonathanHopeThisIsUnique (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply