German Word of the Day – “gar”

gar-sogar-pictureHello everyone,

and welcome to our German Word of the Day. This time we will take a bite of the word

gar

I hope it’s cooked. I mean… I don’t want to get Cindarella. Had that as a kid once. I was throwing up for days…
Awfully unfunny joke as an intro. Check.
Yeah. 2014. Getting things done.

Gar is a weird word. It means cooked. And it means at all. And it has come a long loooooooooong way … (click here for the obligatory flashback harp)
Once  upon a time, the Indo-Europeans found a root *(e)r,  and it meant something like to get going, to get into motion. They planted this root and watered it daily with use so it grew into a tree, a huuuuuge tree with many leaves. To run is one of those leaves, as is to ride. And to rise.  And to raise  … oh and earnest.
A few centuries ago, there also was a Germanic word *ga-arwa (or garawēr or something similar… the sources vary) on that tree. This was a combination of a form of the original root and the prefix *ge/ga which the Germanic people back then used to add to all kinds of things to imply completion. The meaning of that word was something like “done get going”… that is my very personal translation :)… and it meant something like… set, prepared. Now, in English people soon were just like “Meh… let’s just drop the ge, shall we  and so geraete turned to .. ready. They did keep one word with the ge in it too… to gear (up), which clearly also has the prepared, set, ready idea in itself. Run, ride, gear, ready… they’re all one big family.
In German, they never had a problem with ge- . They loved it. And so they kept garo in the meaning of ready, prepared. But for some reason, they also kept playing around with the root and after a while they replaced the ge with their new darling prefix be-. And that’s where bereit comes from.

  • Ich bin bereit, dir zuzuhören.
  • I am ready to listen to you.

So… bereit and ready don’t only mean the same… they also are family. I was surprised when I found that out. Now, what happened to garo? Well, bereit was a huge success. Garo lost more and more ground and today, the only field in which it is still the word of choice for ready is… the kitchen. And not even the general ready as in dinner’s ready. No. It just means cooked as in the opposite of raw.

  • Das Fleisch ist gar.
  • The meat is cooked/done (ready – lit.)

There is also a verb garen, which means (gently) cooking.

  • Dampfgaren – oder: wie gare ich Gemüse möglichst schonend.
  • Steaming – or: how to cook vegetables as gently as possible.

Now, of course we don’t talk about gar because it can be used for cooking.
But on it’s walk through the centuries gar has taken on and lost  other functions too , some of which it still has today.
So… the original meaning was a general ready or prepared. That is not very far from a general  idea of completion. And, as we can see in English, that idea can be used as an intensifier

  • The glass is empty.
  • The glass is completely empty.

I mean… empty is empty and not sort of empty or almost empty. So what is completely adding if not intensity. And gar was used for exactly that.

  • Du bist gar schön.
  • You are utterly beautiful.
  • Sprich nicht gar so schnell.
  • Don’t speak all that fast.

This has come a little out of date. You can find it here and there but definitely sounds like you’re stage acting. But there is one use-case in which this gar is common… very common… incredibly hyper XXXL common.

garnicht

Let’s go right ahead and look at so…  wait, what’s that siren? Oh god, German spelling police… quick, I have to write it as two words.

  • Der Film gefällt mir gar nicht
  • I don’t like this movie at all.
  • Ich habe gar keine Lust auf Oper.
  • I have no Lust for opera at all (lit.)
  • I do not want to go to the opera at all.
  • Du weißt gar nichts, Jon Schnee.
  • You know (absolutely) nothing, Jon Snow.

That’s no joke, by the way. … they really did that. So awful.
All these versions, with nicht, nichts and kein are really really common and people use it every day. And if you want to put even more emphasis on the negative… well just extend the gar.

  • Ich habe gaaaaaaaaaaaaaah keine Zeit.
  • I have noooooo time     AT     ALL.

Now, sometimes people also use it with other words of negation…

  • Ich habe gar niemandem gesagt, was ich weiß.
  • I told absolutely no one what I know.
  • Ich habe das gar nirgends gesehen.
  • I haven’t seen that anywhere ever.

That is weird sounding to say the least though and you shouldn’t try it. It might work but it might also be just wrong. But with gar nicht, gar nichts and gar kein/e/n/m/r/s  … those always work and you should start using them. By the way… stretching out the gar is not the only way to make it even more intense… there is also the following  common idiom

  • ganz und gar

Literally, this means entirely and completely so it kind of super intensifies things. You can use that just like the regular gar and it is especially handy for those stand alone  no-s… a single gar nicht would sound a bit truncated in that case.

  • “Stör ich?”
    “Nein, ganz und gar nicht.”
  • “Am I disturbing you?”
    “Oh no,not at all.”

So, intensifying a negative is one of the things the complete-idea of gar has brought us, but it is not the only one. There is another super common word. Sogar.

Sogar – and the many things it doesn’t mean

Back a few centuries  ago… the words gar is still in common use as  completely. Two princesses sit around swooning over Sir Loras, that cool knight they have heard so much about….

  • “Er ist so stark und schön”
    “Ja… und so gar klug”
  • “He is so strong and pretty”
    “Yes, and so utterly smart.”

People used that way of intensifying a lot and so it fused and became one word - sogar. And then the original meaning changes, from so completely  to even. So from today’s point of view the princess said the following.

  • He is strong and pretty and even smart.

I don’t really know why there was this change. Maybe people got so used to their dramatic sogar that someone one day said

  • Auf dem Fest gab es Pfeffer aus Indien, Wein aus Italien und sogar Kartoffeln aus Amerika.

And the people around him were like… “What?! Pepper from India, wine from Italy and so utterly potatoes? That don’t make no sense.”. But it sounded cool and so they kept using this to underline how special something is. I mean… so utterly smart and even smart... the both do have the idea of special in them. But anyway… the original meaning was soon forgotten and today sogar means even… 

  • Mein Boss hat mir sogar was zum Geburtstag geschenkt.
  • My boss even gave me a birthday present.
  • Die Waschmaschine verbraucht nur 5 Liter Wasser und im Wassersparmodus sogar nur 3.
  • The washing machine uses only 5 liters of water and in water efficiency mode JUST  3.
  • Wenn Maria Milch trinkt, und sogar, wenn sie nur daran denkt, wird ihr schlecht.
  • When Maria drinks milk, and even when she only thinks about it, she gets nauseous.

Now, the word even is used for many different things and has many different translations. Sogar only works for the even that is reaching for extremes so to speak. Like… you can reach the apples on that branch but if you really really stretch out your arm you can even reach the bigger ones on that branch further up. You reach far out to include extremes for extremes with sogar. And that’s all it does. It is not like even that means all kinds of things.
In fact, let’s look at one example where sogar doesn’t work… or at least not without changing the meaning of the sentence.

  • Have you even read the book?

This can mean two things. One: you doubt that the other person has actually read it… and two: you think that reading the book is an extreme thing to do and the normal activity would be “put on shelf” or “look at the pictures”. The first one makes much more sense in this context and most people would understand it that way but the other one is possible too, at least in theory. And now guess what this sentence means.

  • Hast du das Buch sogar gelesen?

Exactly, number two. It sounds genuinely impressed at how extreme and out there reading a book is. And that’s all sogar does – reaching for extremes. Okay… is it really all it does? Like.. really? Only that? The answer is … No. It doesn’t even do that properly :). It only works in positive sentences. As soon as you introduce a nicht sogar is going to leave . those two… they’re really awkward about each other. I don’t really know what happened, but not even is not sogar nicht it is nicht mal.

  • Meine Katze passt sogar in diese Box.
  • My cat even fits into this box…. (sooo small)
  • Meine Katze passt nicht mal in diese Box.
  • My cat doesn’t even fit into this box… (soooo fat)

Ugh… German. Can’t you ever just use one word? Like.. what the translation is for something ALWAYS depends. Why must it always depend? Someone should tell the translations to grow up. On second thought though at least the stuff with sogar only working in the positive makes sense… we’ve said that sogar reaches for extremes, be they positive or negative. Add a not and  there is no more reaching… there is just missing something, if that makes sen.. meh whatever… let’s just say not even is nicht mal.

All right… so much  important uses of gar - gar nicht and sogar. Those are the ones you really need and those are the ones you’ll see every day.
There is one more usage that we could mention. It is a bit out of date but it is still around in books so you might come across it… it is gar that expresses surprise.

  • Hast du das Buch gar gelesen?

This question makes it sounds as if the speaker has hints that the other person read the book and the speakers finds that super surprising. The translation would be

  • Don’t tell me you’ve actually read the book. That… that would be crazy.

but not with this undertone of “don’t lie to me.” but rather in genuine surprise and disbelieve.Okay perhaps that’s a bit confusing. Let me just use an example that is more obvious.

  • Hast du gar im Lotto gewonnen?
  • You haven’t won the lottery… have you??!

There is genuine surprise and disbelieve in this. And that’s why it is mostly used in these kind of questions. And that’s also the difference to sogar, which talks about extremes but considers them realistic… and it often has a notion of on top of that.
All right. And I think that’s it for today. This was our German Word of the Day gar. It is related to ready, and it once meant ready but it got out of fashion and now it only means ready in sense of cooked. The idea of completion however, that is in the word, is part of two very important uses. Gar to intensify a negative and the word sogar, that means even in sense of reaching out for the extreme.
If you have any questions or suggestion or sogar complaints, just leave me a comment.
I hope you liked it and see you next time.
By the way, here’s a little riddle for you… which word can you build from the three letters of gar, that is a synonym for very?  If you get it right you have the chance to win an exclusive meet and great with Justin Bieber.

62 responses to “German Word of the Day – “gar”

  1. Vielen Dank

    Like this

  2. Mein Boss hat mir sogar was zum Geburtstag geschenkt.
    My boss even gave me a birthday present.

    My brains hurting – mein boss – my boss, hat..geschenkt – gave, Mir – to me, sogar – duh, zum geburtstag (to the birthday), what is was doing here, right in the middle?

    Good post btw. Useful words we will see everyday is what we need.

    Like this

    • Oh… right… that :). Good thing you asked because I bet it would have confused many…. it’s short for “etwas” (something) and I think in spoken German I say “was” 90% of the time.

      Like this

      • ubungmachtdenmeister

        Ahhhh, My boss had to me even something to the birthday gave. That makes a whole lot more sense. Thanks for clearing that up. Who does your artwork or are they your own brand? They serve as a good visual reminder to what the basis of the post said, when you try to recall it later.

        And now to attempt to use this weeks teachings in a couple of sentences.

        ich habe zu meiner Frau gesagt “Mein essen ist nicht gar” und hat sie sogar zu mir gehört? Nein, gar nicht. – if it was gibberish then i can supply what i thought i was saying :D

        Like this

        • I do those myself. I use images I find online as source material, then I tweak them and add the text. I am a bit of an ass when it comes to giving credit to the source but hey… usually the sources have only taken it form somewhere else, themselves.

          I think you were trying to say:

          I told my wife: “My food isn’t cooked (properly).” And? Did she even listen? No, not at all.

          The “even” in the question is the very same as the one in the book example and it would not be translated using “sogar” here… because.. basically you could replace it with “at all”… “Did she listen at all?”. So, here it is… (I hope my informed guess of the original was correct :)

          Ich habe zu meiner Frau gesagt: “Das Essen ist nicht gar.” Und? Hat sie mir zugehört? Nein, ganz und gar nicht.

          I would leave out the “even”-translation in the question for the reason stated above… to me, it feels like a synonym for “at all” and the answer also contains an “at all”.

          Did she listen at all? No not at all.

          If you do that in German, the second “at all” has no more intensifying power.
          And then, I used “ganz und gar nicht” because “gar nicht” doesn’t work that well as a stand alone “not at all”… it’s not wrong, it just feels truncated.
          Follow up questions are welcome :)

          Like this

          • ubungmachtdenmeister

            okay. My original sentence as i thought it in english was
            I said to my wife “my food is not cooked properly”, and did she even listen to me? No not at all.
            I know that there are double negatives here but we do do this in english. Plus i wanted to use all of the teachings from the lesson to “demonstrate” the use of them.
            Point taken for the “ganz und gar nicht”
            I didnt know you could take “zu” + “gehört” and simply put them together to make “zugehört” – do most verbs take at least one preposition as a prefix, or is it just on special case by case basis?

            Like this

          • The verb is actually “zuhören” so there is no preposition here. If you wanted to use just “hören” you’d need “auf”

            Ich höre auf dich.
            I listen to you.

            But this is “to listen to” in sense of “to obey”. The general listening to people talking is “zuhören + Dative”

            Ich höre dir zu.
            Ich habe dir zugehört.
            Ich versuche, dir zuzuhören.

            And then with the prefixes…yes, I think most verbs take one… or 10. Even really odd ones like “internalisieren”… I could end “ent” to that and be understood. It’s not a real word but depending on how “productive” a prefix is, you can just invent new stuff.

            Like this

  3. Hi, thanks!
    A question on your examples re the cat:

    •Meine Katze passt sogar in diese Box.
    •My cat even fits into this box
    •Meine Katze passt nicht mal in diese Box.
    •My cat doesn’t even fit into this box

    I’ve looked up that die Box is feminine. But I’m confused as to why it’s still akkusativ and not dativ for being “in the box”?
    I’m assuming it’s because it’s still in the process of being placed in the box but just wanted to clarify. The cases are confusing for an english speaker!

    and also, would most people use “Box”? What then do die Kiste, der Karton and der Kasten then represent?

    Thanks!

    Like this

    • It’s fitting /into/ the box, as in its outside at one point, and then inside at the next point. From out to in. Dative would be used to describe this:

      My cat isn’t doing anything called ‘fitting’ when it’s inside this box.

      Makes little sense.

      Like this

      • Exactly right. For some reason the verb “passen” is a directional verb in German. And that shows somewhere else too.

        Dieses Shirt passt mir.
        This shirt fits (me).

        Here, we’re using Dative. So we have… “into the box” and “to me”. Always a “direction”. The Dative indicates that you’re the receiver of something (the fitting). So the shirt does the fitting and you receive it. Hope that makes sense.

        Like this

    • @laledda already answered the “passen”part perfectly so I’ll just talk about Box, Kasten and so on.

      Karton:

      This is a name for the material (cardboard) which people started using for the boxes made of that thing too. To me a Karton is always made of some kind of card board and it usually has a decent size…also also milk packages are called Karton.

      Kasten:

      This, I associate with a square shape. In fact, there is even “kastenförmig”. And a “Kasten” definitely has a decent size. So a cat would normally fit into a “Kasten”. Not all “Kästen” are meant to contain things. There is this one thing in gymnastics which you smash agai… I mean you jump over it and this is also called “Kasten”

      Kiste:

      This I associate with a square shape but more importantly with wood. As for size, it is the same as Kasten. And a Kiste is always meant to be filled.

      Box:

      This is a pretty generic word for container. It can have different shapes and be made of different materials. One example is “Eisbox” which is the Ice container on a bar, or “Tabakbox” which is a small box from aluminum for your tobacco. You couldn’t call either one a Kiste, a Kasten or a Karton. You could use “Dose” for the second one though and “Behälter” for the ice thing.
      Also the speakers of a PA are called “Box”

      By the way… there is also “Schachtel” (small, card board).

      If you’e confused about words like this (concrete nouns) I recommend using Google Image search. It won’t work for box since this is also an English word but for the others you can get a nice impression for what the word is used for :)

      Like this

  4. Wenn Maria Milch trinkt, und sogar, wenn sie nur daran denkt, wird ihr schlecht.
    I don’t get that “ihr”. Does werden go with dativ?
    Vielen Dank!

    Like this

    • It’s similar to “Wie geht’s dir” “Mir geht’s gut” etc. In fact, it’s exactly the same. Instead however, the verb is werden and not sein. If you used sie and not ihr it would mean ‘she becomes a bad person’, instead of ‘the state of affairs to do with her become bad’.

      Like this

      • This construction is really important to know.

        Mir ist kalt.
        Mir ist warm.
        Mir ist langweilig.

        It is always the same idea. It is not YOU who is that, it is IT (the world, I guess) which is that FOR YOU.

        Mir ist schlecht = Es ist mir schlecht = It is bad to me. (literal)

        And that is the way to express when you’re feeling nauseous. It only means that though and you can’t generalize it and use it when life’s being a bitch. Here are a few more constructions like this:

        Mir ist schwindelig.
        I feel dizzy.
        Mir ist komisch.
        I feel weird/funny.
        Mir ist übel.
        (same as “schlecht”, maybe a bit less serious)
        Mir ist nicht gut.
        (same as schlecht, maybe a bit more general)

        And of course you can use “werden” in all cases. If “to be” is a verb for a state, then “werden is the verb for reaching that state :)

        Like this

        • Thanks a lot! I suddenly got it. Werden is a bit confusing sometimes, but I’ll keep in mind what you’ve said: “If “to be” is a verb for a state, then “werden is the verb for reaching that state”, it summarises perfectly.

          Like this

  5. So “was” is sometimes short for etwas in spoken and written german. What other shortened words do average german speakers use that may confuse the novice learner like me?

    Like this

    • I think this is the most common one… people drop endings sometimes and they mumble of course but that’s just normal in speaking.
      One other thing I can think of right now is dropping the verb “haben” in combination with “können”/”dürfen”.

      Kann/darf ich ein Eis?
      Kann ich ‘ne Zigarette?

      They might be more but I can’t think of them just now.

      Like this

      • ‘n(er/m/n/s)’ used to confuse the hell out of me, short for ‘ein(er/m/n/s)’. When you hear people speak, ‘en’ endings generally turn into the consonant before them’s position. eg. haben = habm. They are also their own syllable. If you’re talking fast, most things are possible:

        sagen = sag-ng (even sometimes saang-ng)
        machen = mach-ng
        gehen = gee-n (the n is an extra syllable here, the e isn’t involved)
        verbs that end in ieren = ier-n or mostly just “irn”.
        können = könn-n (basically a long ‘n’)
        malen = mal-n
        räumen = räum-m

        basically back ch (after a/u/o) goes to ng, p, m and b go to m, and everything else stays n.

        This also goes for any en at the end of a word, it is just a nasal sound that is its own syllable, and it can change place in it’s mouth. IMPORTANT: It has to be /unstressed/!! “Den” does NOT change to dng or dm or anything of the sort. In fact, it would be changing cases that way which the Germans would avoid completely.

        Other shortenings might be contractions with prepositions: aufm, aufn, mi-m (the ‘t’ gets swallowed here usually, but instead you close your glottis for a second before you pronounce the next syllable, ‘m’), vorm, vorn, vors, anything really. The letter that shows the case usually stays.

        Last thing I can think of is that ‘er’ is usually pronounced ‘a’ when unstressed by most Germans. Eg. “verlaufen” = “valaufen”. This is only in speech though, careful pronunciation would pronounce the ‘e’, too.

        Like this

        • Aww.. this list is AWSOME :D and so relevant. I felt like you’re describing my way of talking actually :). Thank you soo so much for taking the time to write this. And also, thanks for paying attention to formatting, too… which is nothing to be taken for granted when it comes to comments :)
          Vielen lieben Dank… oda bessa… vieln liehm Dank

          Like this

          • Didn’t think of du turning into ‘e’ after the verb. “Biste, haste, musste, etc.”!
            Also forgot about the rest of the subject pronouns being reduced… “Sie – se, ich – ch (or ck depending where you’re from you say?), du – de, wir – wa, ihr – e(??)” etc etc

            Nicht becomes net (in hessen) or usually rather ‘nich’. Nichts becomes ‘nix’ in many regions too. Ist becomes is, final ‘t’s get dropped or unstressed often. Also the ‘es’ gets contracted basically everywhere it’s possible!

            I should have also said that ‘i(e)r’ can turn into an ‘a’ unstressed, too. “Es ist hier draußen gar nicht so kalt” = “S’is ha draußn ga nich sa kalt.”
            That is fairly exaggerated though, I would say more: “Sis hi draußn ga nich so kalt”.

            I think the biggest thing to take away is that when there are a lot of consonants in the same position in the mouth, they frequently get swallowed (fancy word: assimilated) until they are one long mess! :D

            My pleasure, by the way, Emanuel!

            Like this

        • Haben wir… = hamma
          Hast du = haste
          etc. – perhaps not everywhere and depending on the dialect.

          Like this

          • Definitely how it sounds in Berlin and surroundings :D

            “Haste ma ‘n Euro?”
            “Neeeee, haick nich. Jeh ma ahbeitn.”

            Actually… here’s the full conjugation table for “haben” if the subject follows:

            haick
            haste
            hatta (er)/hattse(sie)/ hattet(es)
            hammwa/hamma
            habta
            hammse

            Like this

          • Grateful Reader

            To add to that: “wollen [?]a”, where [?]a = wir and [?] = something between “m” and “w” – at least how I hear it.

            Like this

          • Both are possible and a mix is too. I think if I talk fast I actually say

            Wova los? (wollen wir)

            with the “v” being something between “w”,”u” and “v”… actually… it is almost like an “u” with some breathing on it. And in fact, even

            Wo-a los? is possible… what really matters in all these things is the rhythm and the stressed syllable.

            Like this

        • Thanks. This may help explain why I can understand written German a lot easier than spoken German. It is something I will need to get used to when learning. Of course, everybody I know takes these types of “shortcuts” as they speak English. I am sure that it gets confusing with English learners.

          Like this

          • ubungmachtdenmeister

            Ja ich auch. sofern ich höre Deutsch gesprochen,werde ich so verwirrt. wenn ich bin im süden, ich kann was sie sagen verstehen, aber im norden nichts. wie kann es so verschieden sein? ich brauche noch mehr Praxis.

            Like this

          • Oh, bei mir ist es andersrum. Ich verstehe im Süden nix, und im Norden alles… ausser im hohen Norden. Da wird’s dann wieder schwierig.

            Like this

          • Yeah…

            “She ain’t gonna gimme no’nnnda eat.”

            When i first started watching movies in English, it was awful sometimes. I really had to rewind like 10 times to hear that they actually said what was written in the subtitles. One of the worse ones for me was(and still is) Daniel Craig by the way. I remember watching the first James Bond movie with him as Bond and he was a complete enigma to me… and I was in Finland at the time, speaking only English and being surrounded by it every day. But Craig… pffffff… he’s a freaking ventriloquist.

            Like this

          • ubungmachtdenmeister

            hmm, die möglichkeit ist das, seit ich habe zwei monaten in bayern verbracht, ich verstehe es mehr. sie sagen sachen wie “servus (hallo,tschüß)”,”alles klar?(wie geht’s)”,”es gibt (ich denke, es ist wie “pech gehabt?”) kennst du diese worte?

            Like this

          • Also, “Servus” kenn’ ich und “Alles klar?” sagt man, glaub’ ich, überall in Deutschland aber “es gibt” in diesem Kontext hab’ ich noch nie gehört :)

            Like this

    • z.B. “mal” statt einmal!

      Like this

  6. Re: “The washing machine only uses 5 liters of water and when in water efficiency mode even only 3″
    I would say “The washing machine only uses 5 liters of water, and just 3 when in water-efficiency mode!”. I think “just” feels like it outclasses “only” to me. I would also easily say “just” in both places (“just 5″ and “just 3″) or “only” in both places.

    Like this

  7. Vielen, vielen herzlichen Dank! Diese Worte haben mich seit so lange verwechselt! Außer „gar nichts“, wusste ich gar nicht (haha), wie man die benutzt. Danke noch mal!

    Like this

    • DIese Worte haben mich schon lange verwirrt. :)

      Viele Lerner verwechseln “verwechseln” und “verwirren”. Der Unterschied ist, dass “verwechseln” heißt “to confuse one for the other, to mix up”, “verwirren” heißt so was in die Richtung von “to bring into (mental) disorder”

      Ich habe die Zwillinge verwirrt.
      Ich habe die Zwillinge verwechselt.

      Beides heißt:

      I confused the twins.

      Like this

  8. Thank you for another interesting and informative post!
    In answer to your question in the washing machine example, I don’t think “…even only 3″ works in English – I’d leave out the “even” there. I tried googling “even only”, and I did find some examples:
    a. “If your Christmas card is even only half as good as this one from Lars Hinrichs, don’t bother.”
    b. “Excellent property. Will be back (even only for the hotel)…”
    c. “Even only if forever”
    In example a, I think “If … is even (only) half as … (then) …” is an idiomatic phrase. And I think b is really “even if only”, which is also idiomatic. Example c is a song title, and it seems deliberately odd, so you have to think about it to try to figure out what it means. (Though the longer I look at it, the more it just looks like 4 words strung together…)

    I’d like to be able to identify what the difference is between that and the other examples you gave, but it’s hard for me to put my finger on what it is about it.

    Like this

    • Hmmm… I guess, “even only” just doesn’t combine like “sogar nur” … at least most of the time. Let me give you all 3 translations.

      a) Wenn deine Weihnachtskarte “auch” nur halb so gut ist, wie…

      b) Super Anwesen (not sure here). Wir kommen wieder, sogar nur des Hotels wegen.

      b1) Wir kommen wieder, und wenn’s nur für’s Hotel ist.

      b2) …, allein schon für’s Hotel/des Hotels wegen.

      c) auch nur dann, wenn für immer

      I used Google translate for the last one :). The German c) can make sense but I’d have to concoct a very specific statement. The hotel one kind of feels like the mashing machine example used… but at the same time, it’s not. These things make my brain hurt but I think ultimately it is just a question use.

      Like this

  9. Wait, you left us hanging. How do you say “Have you even read the book?”

    Like this

  10. Grateful Reader

    Ist “nicht mal” eher umgangssprachlich oder kommt es auch in “seriöseren” Texten vor (Lehrbücher usw.)?

    Like this

    • Also, es klingt nicht gerade super geschliffen, aber es gibt keine Alternative (von “nicht einmal” mal abgesehen). Ich denke mal, dass man es in wirklich wissenchaftlichen Texten ganz vermeiden würde, da es ja immer eine Bewertung ist. “Nur (noch)” oder “nicht mehr als” oder “weniger als” sind da deutlich neutraler.
      Aber so im generellen Schreibgebrauch wird es definitiv benutzt…. hier ein paar Beispiele

      Like this

  11. Very informative :) Glad I’m not the only one who likes etymology – I just so rarely get a chance to look at it from the German side!

    Like this

  12. Interessante Seite :D
    Da sucht man auf Google nach einem Word-Problem und trifft solch eine Seite an :3
    Obwohl Deutsch meine Muttersprache ist, ist der erste Drittel dieses Textes komplett neu für mich. Warum lernt man auf fremdsprachigen Seiten so viel mehr über die eigene Sprache als in der Schule oder im Alltag? D:
    Wie auch immer, ich wollte nur sagen, dass ich diese Seite sehr lehrreich finde und ich werde noch den ein oder anderen Text zu früheren Wörtern des Tages durchlesen, bevor diese Seite in meiner vollgemüllten Favoritenliste untergeht :3

    Like this

    • Für mich ist es auch immer super-interessant, die Wortherkunft nachzugucken und zu gucken, was da in Englisch und anderen Sprachen alles so dazugehört. Manchmal ist es langweilig, aber manchmal ist es echt unglaublich. Und sowas hat mir sehr geholfen, Vokabeln zu lernen. Das könnte man in der Schule tatsächlich mal ein bisschen einführen.. so in Englisch oder Französisch. Einfach manchmal gucken, wo ein bestimmtes Wort herkommt und warum es heißt, was es heißt. Aber keine Sorge, ich hab’ nicht bei jedem Wort so viel dazu geschrieben. Oft ist es nur ein Satz oder so. Das heißt, du verpasst nicht soviel, wenn du nicht dazu kommst mehr zu lesen :). Aber wenn dich so Wortherkunft interessiert, dann empfehle ich ein Etymologisches Wörterbuch… ist super Klolektüre. Was hast du eigentlich gesucht, als du mich gefunden hast. Ein Word-Problem… hmmmm… ich hab’ echt keine Idee :)

      Like this

  13. Grateful Reader

    Was fühlst du, wenn du ältere deutsche Texte liest? Z.B. die Lutherbibel. Die Wörter sehen oftmals anders aus, die Nebensatzstruktur hat sich noch nicht in die gegenwärtige Form umgewandelt… Empfindest du solche Text als irgendwie “fremd”, oder trotzdem als standarddeutsch mit mittelalterlichem Beigeschmack?

    Like this

    • Puh… ich les’ sowas eigentlich nie. Ist mir zu anstrengend. Aber mein Eindruck von den paar Impressionen, die ich gesammelt habe ist, dass die Strukturen mir vertraut sind… so in Dramen, vor allem den alten Griechischen Heldensagen, geht es ja wild zu, was das angeht, sprich, da schockt mich garnix. Aber was die konkreten Wörter angeht, da habe ich Probleme, wenn da allzuviele Buchstaben differieren… “frouwe”… wenn ich nicht wüsste, dass das Frau heißt, dann wär das reines raten.

      Like this

      • Interessant…
        Ich meine Texte wie Folgender:

        “1 Vnd Darius aus Meden nam das Reich ein / da er zwey vnd sechzig jar alt war. 2 Vnd Darius sahe es fur gut an / das er vber das gantze Königreich setzte hundert vnd zwenzig Landuögte. 3 Vber diese setzet er drey Fürsten (der einer war Daniel) welchen die Landuögte solten rechnung thun / vnd der König der mühe vberhaben were.”

        Ich kann das fast ohne Probleme verstehen, der Text sieht aber komisch aus. Und merke, wie die Nebensätze “gebrochen” sind. Ich wundere mich, ob du wüsstest, wann der Übergang zur heutigen Nebensatzstruktur vollzogen worden ist?

        Like this

        • PS: “wie Folgenden”? “wie Folgendes”?

          Like this

          • Technisch ist “wie folgenden” richtig. Ich bin mir zu 80% sicher, dass es klein geschrieben wird, da das Bezugsnomen “Text” ganz in der Nähe steht. Aber in der Hinsicht sind die Regeln WIRKLICH verwirrend und willkürlich. Da weiß echt keiner, was er machen soll.
            Wie auch immer… “wie folgenden” klingt ein bisschen sehr trocken. So ein bisschen “Abstract”-mässig. Ich würde sagen “wie den folgenden”… oder salopp “wie den hier” :)

            Like this

          • Grateful Reader

            Und jetzt bin ich wirklich verwirtt :)

            Früher hast du gesagt, dass diese “Verweiswörter” ohne Artikel idiomatischer aussehen und dass man damit auf der richtigen Seite wäre…

            Like this

          • Ja stimmt, das hab ich gesagt. War wohl doch nicht so sicher :D… also, ich habe ein bisschen überlegt und denke das es etwas damit zu tun hat ob man ein konkretes “Ding” referenziert oder nur einen Fakt als solchen. Zweiteres wird mittels dem sächlichen Artikel gemacht.

            Ich möchte noch folgendes sagen…
            Ich möchte noch das Folgende sagen…

            Wenn ich jetzt hier frage “Das folgende WAS?” dann gibt es darauf keine richtige Antwort da es kein Nomen gibt.
            Beim einem Beispiel mit “Beispiel” hingegen haben wir ein konkretes Nomen… nämlich “das Beispiel”.

            Es gibt viele Beispiele dafür, zum Beispiel folgendes…
            Es gibt viele Beispiele dafür, zum Beispiel das Folgende…

            Hier ist die zweite Version besser, denn sie ist eindeutig, während in der ersten das Standard-folgendes mitklingt. Man muss ein bisschen denken um es auf “das Beispiel” zu beziehen.

            Es gibt viele Sätze wie folgenden…
            Es gibt viele Sätze wie den folgenden…

            Auch hier haben wir ein konkretes Nomen und da funktioniert es dann mit konkretem Pointer besser… macht das Sinn?? Ich leite hier auch grad nur her :)

            Like this

          • Grateful Reader

            Sieht logisch aus. Ich glaube aber, ich habe auch “konkrete” Verweise ohne Artikel gesehen… Wenn ich so was wieder finde, frag ich dich nochmal :)

            Like this

          • Ja, bestimmt gibt’s das. Wie gesagt… ich stochere im Dunkeln… oder zumindest im Zwielicht.

            Like this

          • Grateful Reader

            Also, ein Beispiel aus Wiki:

            “Die Liquidität 3. Grades (L3) steht in folgender Weise im Zusammenhang mit dem Working Capital (WC):
            L3 = 1 ↔ WC = 0″

            Hier kann dem Verweiswort ein Nomen (Weise) zugeordnet werden, also nicht etwas ganz Abstraktes, aber trotzdem…

            Like this

          • Ah, dann hab’ ich mich nicht gut ausgedrückt :)… ich meinte ein konkretes Nomen mit einer (relativ) konkreten “Füllung”… der Inhalt ist hier:

            L3 = 1 …

            Was ist das nun? Eine Gleichung. Ok. Ein Beispiel. Ok… aber eine Weise? Ne, eher nicht. Man könnte “in folgender Weise” durch “folgendermaßen” ersetzen. Es ist also in Realität kein konkretes Nomen. “in folgender Weise” ist eine Floskel… oder “ein Redemittel” wie man im Unterricht so schön sagt :).

            Sätze wie den folgenden gibt es viele..
            Beispiele wie das Folgende gibt es viele…
            Eine Idee wie die Folgende hatte sie viele…

            Hier ist das Nomen wichtig. Hoffe das macht Sinn für dich :)

            Like this

        • Ja, das ist wirklich nicht so weit weg, von was wir heute sprechen. Wann sich die Verbletztstellung durchgesetzt hat, habe ich irgendwann mal gelesen, aber ich komm’ leider nicht drauf, wo. Wenn’s mir einfällt, dann schreib ich dir. Das war in einem interessanten Buch.
          Aber das ist insgesamt so eine Trendsache. Momentan geht der Trend wieder ein bisschen zu “mal Mitte, mal hinten”… man denke nur an

          Er hat mehr gegessen als ich.
          Er hat mehr als ich gegessen.

          Das zweite klingt für mich “old fashionedter”… oh was für ein hässliches Wort :D… “romaniger”.

          Like this

  14. Hello Emmanuel, thanks very much for this post !
    Is there any common conceptual thread (like ziehen is to pull with a string, a very useful concept) to the very many variants (with different prefixes) of richten. I am confused by the fact that so many of the meanings seem totally unrelated. richten judge, adjust. Hinrichten execute (OK probably a variant of to judge but why hin?) . einrichten install, set up. Unterrichten teach (with in) or inform (with über). berichten report. errichten to erect. not to mention ausrichten which has so many meanings (rectify, organize, please tell sb sth) that I find it impossible to remember.
    Herzlichen Dank !! Lucius

    Like this

    • Oh that’s a great suggestion for a word of the day actually… without having looked up anything, my guess would be that it is related to “right” but that might be of completely. Anyway, I’ll definitely do a prefix special on “richten”… and oh,,, I totally forgot about your question with “an die” and “gegen”. Tut mir leid…. I’ll tell you my thoughts next week when I have a little more time :)… schönes Wochenende erstmal

      Like this

    • Wie immer hilft uns das DWDS:

      “hinrichten Vb. ‘an jmdm. das Todesurteil vollstrecken’; im Frühnhd. zunächst ‘zugrunde richten, verderben, töten’ (15. Jh.), erklärbar aus der Verbindung von hin ‘nieder, zu Boden’ (s. oben) mit richten (s. d.) in derBedeutung ‘in eine bestimmte Richtung bringen’. Unter Einfluß der Rechtssprache, die frühnhd. richten (wie schon mhd. rihten) auch im Sinne von ‘das Todesurteil vollstrecken’ kennt, zeigt hinrichten vom frühen 16. Jh. an gelegentlich ebenfalls diese spezielle Verwendungsweise, die seit dem 19. Jh. ausschließlich gilt. “

      Like this

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s