Are Funktionsverben Pro-Verben?

< Previous | Next >
Thank you so much in advance for your kind answer to the following question:
(I would like you all to answer me in English, as much as you can.)

Are the empty-verbs ( = Funktionsverben) a kind of pro-verbs?
Pro-form - Wikipedia
(The German Wikipedia fails to show any pro-verbs.)

ex.:
Hilfe leisten
Schaden tun
gute Dienste tun
Freude/Sorge/Spaß machen
sich an die Arbeit machen

just like :
to do ( = to wash) the dishes/laundry
to do some reading/letter-writing/shopping
to make haste (Middle-Age English: = to hurry up)
to make waste (Haste makes waste.) = to waste
to make a mistake = to mistake
to make a (photo-)copy of = to (photo-)copy
to dream a big dream
to die a heroic death

This book, the most detailed one on German pro-forms, also fails to apply itself to answering such a question, even:
Textgrammatik – Gesprochene Sprache – Sprachvergleich: Proformen im gesprochenen Französischen und Deutschen Variolingua. Nonstandard – Standard – Substandard, Band 9: Amazon.de: Schreiber, Michael: Bücher
 
Last edited:
  • Kajjo

    Senior Member
    Are the empty-verbs ( = Funktionsverben) a kind of pro-verbs?
    I believe both in the context of L1-DE (natives) or L2-DE (German as second language) the concept of "pro-verbs" is actually unknown und never discussed. So it's just not an item here. I am not sure whether German linguists discuss this issue a lot, but certainly it is not part of German grammar in all kinds of L1 and L2 German teaching.

    We use the concept of pronouns and consider them as a word class of their own. We do not distinguish verbs like that. Verbs are verbs, no matter which function they have. We talk about auxiliary verbs (haben / sein).

    Hilfe leisten
    Schaden tun
    gute Dienste tun
    Freude/Sorge/Spaß machen
    sich an die Arbeit machen
    No, I have the feeling that "pro-verb" does not fit here anyway. The "machen" does not replace a verb, it just is combined with a noun phrase to build a more full verb phrase.
     

    Demiurg

    Senior Member
    German
    Here's an explanation in German: Proverb
    Ein Proverb, auch Verb-Substitut genannt, ist ein Verb als Proform und als Mittel der Kohäsion. Es ist eine referentielle Verweisform.

    Proverben (z. B. tun, machen, sein) werden (immer gemeinsam mit anderen Proformen) im Text verwendet, um den Inhalt eines stärker determinierten Verbs (oder einer Verbalphrase) präsent zu halten [. . .] (Beaugrande & Dressler 1981: 67).
    ...
    Beispiel
    Schreibst du noch heute einen Brief?
    Das mache ich bestimmt. Oder: So ist es.
     

    Hutschi

    Senior Member
    Hi, we have mainly two verbs which can replace almost all other verbs: "tun" and "machen".

    In the English Wikipedia, they have:

    "I will go to the party if you do".

    I could translate this:

    Ich gehe zur Party, wenn du das auch tust. - mostly in this context.
    Ich gehe zur Party, wenn du das auch machst. - seldom in this context.

    "Machen"
    is often used for verbs which describe a handling.
    Kannst du mit dem Auto fahren? Ja, aber ich will das nicht mehr machen.

    Both are not good style, but I remember during my own language learning as pre-school child, I used it a lot if I did not know a better word.
    In school they jokingly adviced we should finish to "tuten" - that is why I remember it. (Eselsbrücke)

    "Tun" can also used as "Hilfsverb" (aux. verb) like in English, but this is in almost all cases bad style. --- in this case it isno "pro-verb"

    Some verbs include "machen" in a standard form and are standard verbs:

    einmachen=1. einkochen/einwecken - 2. In die Hose pullern as euphemism

    ---
    In some cases "machen" became standard:

    Ich mache Hausaufgaben.
    Ich mache nichts.
    Ich mache mich davon (sich davonmachen)

    In these cases they are no "pro-verbs" any more.



    ---
    Pro-verb is a concept, we did not learn in school, because it is seldom and in German it is covered by other concepts, too. The others mentioned it already.

    In answers to questions in many cases you can replace other verbs by "machen":

    Ich mache das. Ich mache das nicht.
    Ich tue das. Ich will das nicht tun. Ich tue das nicht. Much less frequently then "machen" in this context.
    ---

    Very idiomatic:

    "Lass mich das mal machen!"
    "Lass mich das mal tun!"


    ---
    summary:
    "Tun" and "machen" can work this way.
    But often they are used as aux. verb (tun and machen) (other function) or as verbs on their own (machen).
     
    Last edited:
    Here's an explanation in German: Proverb
    Vielen Dank!  
    I guess the presently-so-called Proverben are what Michael Schreiber calls Pro-VPs( = Pro-Verbalphrasen) in the above "Textgrammatik" book:

    Eng. ex.:
    Did you go there yesterday? -- Yes, I did. (The "did" stands_for/replaces the whole verb phrase: "go there yesterday".)

    (But that may carry the strictness of the namings too far; "he" can be a "proNOUN" for "the tall thin Japanese guy who lives here", so that is actually a Pro-NP. Schreiber uses the term Pro-NPs all right, though.)

    And what should originally be called authentic/genuine/pure pro-verbs, I think, are, for example:
    I'll do ( = wash) the dishes/laundry.
    He gave the telephone a look/glance.
    Here, "the telephone" is inevitably a presupposition/old_info, while in "He looked/glanced at the telephone.", "the telephone" is [part of] the focus/new_info, especially when it gets a prominence of a stress and high pitch/intonation.
    "He looked/glanced at the telophone." also gives the action (in this case: the verb) the focus(-ness), but at the same time, the verb also gets the contrast to, for example, " , not knocked off the telephone." etc..

    So, "machen" in "Das ( = Das Briefschreiben) mache ich bestimmt/doch/schon/etc.." IS supposed to be originally called a pro-verb. And by the same token, I guess, the empty verbs ( = Funktionsverben) belong to the same kind? Or should you call them semi-pro-verbs, as they bear some part(s) of the meaning(s) of the nomen_actionis/action_names and leave the other part(s) out? :
    Freude machen = freuen
    Hilfe leisten = helfen
    sich an-die-Arbeit machen = die Arbeit an-fangen

    Regarding the above English examples, I hear that in/with/bei Funktionsverben you can add modifiers to the nomen actionis:
    eine große Freude machen
    eine große Hilfe leisten
    Is it not the same case of the English examples? Namely, in English, the action names get the focuses(-ness), and the German counterparts, too:
    do a quick/big laundry/shopping
    be/give a big help

    But what about in the case of these simple, modifiers-less cases?:
    Freude machen
    Hilfe leisten
    Do the action names still/even_here get the focus, in the contrasts to
    Schaden/Sorgen machen
    Un-Hilfe leisten ?
     
    Last edited:

    Hutschi

    Senior Member
    Hi,

    1. I am not fully sure - but "leisten" does not seem to be such a pro-verb. It is used in its own sens without replacing other verbs or verb phrases.
    Another point:

    2. A pure ellipsis does also not create a pro-verb. Tun and to do are false friends in some phrases regarding pro-verb.


    In my mind only tun and machen are pro-verbs in your given sense.
     
    Hi,

    1. I am not fully sure - but "leisten" does not seem to be such a pro-verb. It is used in its own sens without replacing other verbs or verb phrases.
    Another point:

    2. A pure ellipsis does also not create a pro-verb.
    Would you mind elaborating on the above "pure ellipsis"?

    And I edited my previous posting many times, also while you posted your answer. So, I wonder if you could possibly go to the trouble of reading it over again.
     

    Hutschi

    Senior Member
    Do you come with me?
    Yes, I do.

    "Do" does not replace "come" here. The verb phrase is just shortened.

    In German it replaces the original word.
    Kochst du Mittagessen?
    Ja, ich mache das.
    Ja ich werde das tun.
    These are no ellipsis.

    But it is seldom used and often bad style.
     
    Hi, we have mainly two verbs which can replace almost all other verbs: "tun" and "machen".

    In the English Wikipedia, they have:

    "I will go to the party if you do".

    I could translate this:

    Ich gehe zur Party, wenn du das auch tust. - mostly in this context.
    Ich gehe zur Party, wenn du das auch machst. - seldom in this context.

    "Machen"
    is often used for verbs which describe a handling.
    Kannst du mit dem Auto fahren? Ja, aber ich will das nicht mehr machen.

    Both are not good style, but I remember during my own language learning as pre-school child, I used it a lot if I did not know a better word.
    In school they jokingly adviced we should finish to "tuten" - that is why I remember it. (Eselsbrücke)

    "Tun" can also used as "Hilfsverb" (aux. verb) like in English, but this is in almost all cases bad style. --- in this case it isno "pro-verb"

    Some verbs include "machen" in a standard form and are standard verbs:

    einmachen=1. einkochen/einwecken - 2. In die Hose pullern as euphemism

    ---
    In some cases "machen" became standard:

    Ich mache Hausaufgaben.
    Ich mache nichts.
    Ich mache mich davon (sich davonmachen)

    In these cases they are no "pro-verbs" any more.



    ---
    Pro-verb is a concept, we did not learn in school, because it is seldom and in German it is covered by other concepts, too. The others mentioned it already.

    In answers to questions in many cases you can replace other verbs by "machen":

    Ich mache das. Ich mache das nicht.
    Ich tue das. Ich will das nicht tun. Ich tue das nicht. Much less frequently then "machen" in this context.
    ---

    Very idiomatic:

    "Lass mich das mal machen!"
    "Lass mich das mal tun!"


    ---
    summary:
    "Tun" and "machen" can work this way.
    But often they are used as aux. verb (tun and machen) (other function) or as verbs on their own (machen).
    Thank you so much!
    Our "Eijiroo Eng. Dict. on the WEB" says the antonym of the aux.(-verb) is called the main/principal verb. (Just for your information/reference.)
     
    Do you come with me?
    Yes, I do.

    "Do" does not replace "come" here. The verb phrase is just shortened.

    In German it replaces the original word.
    Kochst du Mittagessen?
    Ja, ich mache das.
    Ja ich werde das tun.
    These are no ellipsis.

    But it is seldom used and often bad style.
    I see that you meant by "ellipsis" omission!
    The above intial/sentence-head "Do" is not a so-called pro-verb, and so, not a Pro-VP; it is an aux..
     
    Would you mind elaborating on the above "pure ellipsis"?

    And I edited my previous posting many times, also while you posted your answer. So, I wonder if you could possibly go to the trouble of reading it over again.
    You seemed to have missed the above second paragraph before I added it to the first and while you replied to the first. Excuse me the too-much-hurried jobs.
     
    I see that you meant by "ellipsis" omission!
    The above intial/sentence-head "Do" is not a so-called pro-verb, and so, not a Pro-VP; it is an aux..
    Hi,

    1. I am not fully sure - but "leisten" does not seem to be such a pro-verb. It is used in its own sens without replacing other verbs or verb phrases.
    Another point:

    2. A pure ellipsis does also not create a pro-verb. Tun and to do are false friends in some phrases regarding pro-verb.


    In my mind only tun and machen are pro-verbs in your given sense.
    Michael Schreiber: "Textgrammatik" classifies a whole lot of pure ellipses also as pro-forms of/with null/zero-realization/expression-forms. As you know, the linguists see many silence-pauses or blanks that represent un-realized/un-expressed semantic units as the so-called "null symbols" = "Φ”. Chomsky's "traces" of "t"-s, too, could be regarded as ones; I fail to know if Chomskians really treat them as such.
     

    Kajjo

    Senior Member
    Ich habe bisher unterschieden:
    • Hilfsverben (sein, haben, werden) ... für Grammatik wie Tempus, Modus
    • Kopulaverben (sein, werden, bleiben) ... bilden zusammen mit Prädikativ ein Prädikat
    • Modalverben (können, dürfen, sollen, müssen, mögen) ... für Modalität
    • Funktionsverben (machen, kommen, bringen, finden...) ... ergänzen Nominalphrasen um die Funktion des Verbs
    Das Konzept der Proverben erscheint mir nicht unbedingt zwingend zu sein, aber falls eine Art Universalverb wie machen/tun ein anderes Verb ersetzt, mag das eine sinnvolle Bezeichnung sein. Ich glaube aber, dass du oft Funktionsverben und Proverben verwechselst.

    Wenn man das Wort vergleicht, so sind Pronomen und Nomen eindeutig unterschiedliche Wortklassen, nicht nur unterschiedliche Funktionen. Die Unterscheidung ergibt daher großen Sinn. Im Kontrast dazu sind Proverben auch ganz normale Verben und der Status Proverb wird nur nach der Funktion zugeordnet, ähnlich wie bei den oberen vier Kategorien, die auch alle Verben sind und nur nach Funktion unterschieden werden. Es handelt sich nicht um eine eigene Wortklasse.
    The above intial/sentence-head "Do" is not a so-called pro-verb, and so, not a Pro-VP; it is an aux..
    That's correct.
     
    Excuse me, Mr. Kajjo: I have an objection:
    In the light of the modern semantics, the parts of speech/Wortklassen cross_over/intermingle each other.

    example:
    According to Dwight Bolinger's "Meaning and Form," the following "that" is a conjunction AND a demonstrative pronoun:

    The weatherman said that it'll be fine tomorrow!
    ("That" = that previuosly-discussed/argued thing concerning their/"our" foregoing/former conversation contents.)
    According to Bolinger, you could never utter the above sentence without any preceding context, like when you suddenly enter the listener's room without having discussing tomorrow's weather with him/her. In that case, you must say:
    The weatherman said it'll be fine tomorrow! (without "that")

    I forgot what they were, but I know that there were other examples of parts-of-speech mixings/blendings.

    Grammars are flexible and fluid/liquid and have no perfectly-rigid boundaries/barriers inside them. That's why the grammaticalizations happen, don't you think?
    See the rock-logic and water-logic shown by Prof. de Bono:
    Laterales Denken – Wikipedia
    The language moves by both those logics.
    (I highly honor your German thorough orderliness/rigidness with the perfect sorting/arrangement habits, though.)
     
    Last edited:
    Addition for Mr. Kajjo:
    Können has the etymology of kennen. And I am sure the following "kann" can be interpreted both as a main/principal verb and as an auxiliary verb at the same time:
    Ich kann Japanisch. = Ich kann Japanisch (sprechen/benutzen : can be seen as omitted, but historically: added later). = I know Japanese. = I know to speak/use Japanese. = I know how to speak/use Japanese.
     
    Excuse me, Mr. Kajjo: I have an objection:
    In the light of the modern semantics, the parts of speech/Wortklassen cross_over/intermingle each other.

    example:
    According to Dwight Bolinger's "Meaning and Form," the following "that" is a conjunction AND a demonstrative pronoun:

    The weatherman said that it'll be fine tomorrow!
    ("That" = that previuosly-discussed/argued thing concerning their/"our" foregoing/former conversation contents.)
    According to Bolinger, you could never utter the above sentence without any preceding context, like when you suddenly enter the listener's room without having discussing tomorrow's weather with him/her. In that case, you must say:
    The weatherman said it'll be fine tomorrow! (without "that")

    I forgot what they were, but I know that there were other examples of parts-of-speech mixings/blendings.

    Grammars are flexible and fluid/liquid and have no perfectly-rigid boundaries/barriers inside them. That's why the grammaticalizations happen, don't you think?
    See the rock-logic and water-logic shown by Prof. de Bono:
    Laterales Denken – Wikipedia
    The language moves by both those logics.
    (I highly honor your German thorough orderliness/rigidness with the perfect sorting/arrangement habits, though.)
    Correction:
    Delete "each other" from "cross_over/intermingle each other." .
     

    Kajjo

    Senior Member
    According to Dwight Bolinger's "Meaning and Form," the following "that" is a conjunction AND a demonstrative pronoun:
    Of course words can belong to different word classes depending on usage. This is very often the case. In a few cases assigning a word class might be difficult or ambigious. However, I don't see how your statement relates to my reply.

    can be interpreted both as a main/principal verb and as an auxiliary verb at the same time:
    I cannot see the auxiliary interpretation at all.

    I agree that two possible analyses are possible:

    1 "kann" as modal verb with the infinitive "sprechen" omitted
    2 "kann" as full verb in the basic meaning "to be able to do something"

    The second analysis is the default, "etwas können" is very idiomatic and common. Interpretation 1 is only theoretical (see below).

    See Duden, 2a): Duden | können | Rechtschreibung, Bedeutung, Definition, Herkunft

    Argument in favor of 2 is the parallel structure with negation:

    Richtig: Ich kann Japanisch, aber ich kann kein Russisch.
    aber nicht: Ich kann Japanisch, aber ich nicht Russisch [sprechen].
     
    Thank you so much!
    As I have recalled, I suggested that the empty verbs may have to be called "semi-pro-verbs," because they have/hold only parts of the meanings of the action-names/nomen-actionis (Sorry: I fail to know the plural form of that Latin phrase. Nomina-action-?) Would you mind letting me know what you say about the idea, please?

    The self-answer to my question around the thread-beginning or -middle:
    The FVG ( = Funktionsverbgefügen)-action-names do bear the focus function:
    Das macht mir FREUDE. = Das FREUT mich.
    Er leistet mir HILFE. = Er HILFT mir.
    (Are all these sentences possible, I wonder?)
     
    Last edited:

    Kajjo

    Senior Member
    The FVG ( = Funktionsverbgefügen)-action-names do bear the focus function:
    Funktionsverbgefüge bestehen aus einem Funktionsverb und typischerweise einer Präpositional- oder Nominalphrase. Das Funktionsverb steuert nur die grammatische Verb-Funktion bei, während der Inhalt weit überwiegend durch die Präpositional- oder Nominalphrase bestimmt wird.

    In jenen Fällen, in denen ein alternatives Vollverb zur Verfügung steht, kann die Wahl des Funktionsverbgefüges durchaus rhetorischen Charakter haben. In etlichen Fällen gibt es aber kein äquivalentes Vollverb. Funktionsverbgefüge sind einfach ein ganz normaler Bestandteil der deutschen Sprache.

    Was genau meinst du mit "do bear the focus function"? Als rhetorisches Mittel?

    Im übrigen gefällt mir persönlich der Ausdruck "empty verb" nicht. Funktionsverben sind nicht immer "leer" und manchmal ist der Übergang zwischen Funktionsverb und Vollverb fließend.

    Vergleiche "in Verbindung setzen" (make new connection) mit "in Verbindung stehen" (have an established connection). Das Funktionsverb ist nicht leer, sondern trägt zur Bedeutung bei.

    Das macht mir FREUDE. = Das FREUT mich.
    Er leistet mir HILFE. = Er HILFT mir.

    (Are these sentences possible, I wonder?)
    Yes, all four sentences are correct.
     
    Last edited:
    You most-probably already know this, but I add this, to be on the safe side:
    "Focuses" are the opposite/antonym of "( [anti-] focal) presuppositions" in the "information structures"-theory of the recent linguistics since around 1970s.
    Let's see the case of "He went to the MARKET." It is "presupposed" that "he went (to) somewhere," but the sentence information value/Wert = the core of the sentence's message is "focused"/has a "focus" on the new-info "market" as if it were the answer to the question "Where did he go?" And also, that's why only the omitted utterance of "To the MARKET." or "(The) MARKET." can be a sufficient answer to such a question.

    As I hinted to you above, "He took/had a look/glance at the telephone.", "He looked/glanced at the telephone.", "The telephone, he looked/glanced at.", and "The telephone, he looked/glanced at it." all have a different info structure each, namely a different distribution of the presuppositions and of the focuses.

    I submitted for your reply that the German functional-verb-constructions must have also separate specific info structures other than those of the full-verb constructions. (That guess excludes the cases that you mentioned = the cases where the original full-verb forms have died out/got extinct and the functional-verb-constructions have "fossilized" as old idioms.)
     
    Sorry: I must add (to the present info-structure-theory) my own theory on the essence/fact-vs.-appearance/Schein relationship structures:

    John, Susie called/telephoned. = Speaking of John, Susie called him.
    John, Susie CALLED him. = Speaking of John, the fact is, Susie CALLED him, not VISITED/etc. him, although it (might/must) seem(s)/scheint/(scheinen) as if she visited/etc. him.

    Hast Du Geld? = a plain/simple question proposition showing that you want an answer to it from the listener called Du
    Hast Du denn Geld? = Es scheint/schien mir, dass Du kein Geld hast, aber ist es/die Tatsache, dass Du wirklich etwas Geld hast?

    The four afore-mentioned English sentences including "the telephone" and "look/glance at" have differences that can be fully analyzed only with such a theory, I suppose.

    And I'd like you all to answer me whether the differences between the German full- and functional-verb constructions are also such/like_that.
     
    I wonder if you could possibly elaborate on what you precisely meant by the "rhetorical character" of FVGs, please?
    Is it like a stylistic trait like in "consider" vs. "take into consideration" as in legal documents (or like in "a lie" vs. "an alternative fact")?
     

    Kajjo

    Senior Member
    Let's see the case of "He went to the MARKET." It is "presupposed" that "he went (to) somewhere,"
    No, that is wrong. There is no such presupposition in this simple statement sentence. There is the presupposition (1) that there is a "he" and both communication partners know who is meant; the presupposition (2) that both know which market is meant and that there is a market. There is no presupposition that he "went (somewhere). This could be the new information as well, depending on context and intonation. Only if this were an answer to the question "where did he went?" the reply would presuppose and agree that he went somewhere.
    And I'd like you all to answer me whether the differences between the German full- and functional-verb constructions are also such/like_that.
    I don't really understand what you mean. Using special rhetoric forms and selecting different styles carries a lot of connotations and even meanings.
     

    Kajjo

    Senior Member
    I wonder if you could possibly elaborate on what you precisely meant by the "rhetorical character" of FVGs, please?
    Well, selecting a simple full verb or opting for a FVG phrase often corresponds with a choice of style, with elevated or simplified speak, with added connotations between the lines. Very often (almost always) FVG and simple full verbs are not identical in meaning, even if they are relatively.

    Wir nehmen Abschied von... <Trauerfeier>
    Wir verabschieden... <Auf Wiedersehen>


    Often FVG hat entirely different meaning:

    In Angriff nehmen <beginnen>
    angreifen <to attack>


    or different agents:

    in Erfüllung gehen <either neutral or happen by whatever circumstances>
    erfüllen <someone actively doing it>
     
    No, that is wrong. There is no such presupposition in this simple statement sentence. There is the presupposition (1) that there is a "he" and both communication partners know who is meant; the presupposition (2) that both know which market is meant and that there is a market. There is no presupposition that he "went (somewhere). This could be the new information as well, depending on context and intonation. Only if this were an answer to the question "where did he went?" the reply would presuppose and agree that he went somewhere.

    I don't really understand what you mean. Using special rhetoric forms and selecting different styles carries a lot of connotations and even meanings.
    I should have notified you that by the capital-letters I meant that the word of MARKET has got the intra-sentence stress/prominence.

    And by "such," I meant "info-structure-related/originated".

    Would you further complete your answer for me accordingly?
     
    Last edited:

    Kajjo

    Senior Member
    I should have notified you that by the capital-letters I meant that the word of MARKET has got the intra-sentence stress/prominence.
    Yes, but many different questions could lead to that answer and stress: Where is Hans? Have you seen Hans? Where did Hans go? Only the last question presupposes "that he went somewhere". Stress alone does not imply that all other parts are presupposed.
     
    Yes, but many different questions could lead to that answer and stress: Where is Hans? Have you seen Hans? Where did Hans go? Only the last question presupposes "that he went somewhere". Stress alone does not imply that all other parts are presupposed.
    I'm no expert on English intra-sentential stresses and intonations, but the whole-sentence-focus sentences, namely, the sentences whose entireties/Ganzen consist of only focus words, seem to fail to get any special stress on any specific words to show any special focus(es) that fail to exist(s):
    The answer-parts of the Qs&As of
    Where's Hans? -- He's gone to the market.
    and
    Have you seen Hans? -- He's gone to the market.
    seem to have no special prominence(s) on any syllable(s) to show any focuses, as well as in
    A car's coming! = Car! (for short)
    as a whole-sentence-focus sentence.
    On the other hand, an answer to "Where did Hans go?" seems to need a special prominence on the focus substantival/non-function(-al) word(s).

    Added note:
    The capital-letters in
    FREUDE machen = FREUEN
    was not for the representations of any actual special prominences but for the highlighting/underlining/underscoring/pointing_up of my point/hypothesis. It was confusing with the case of MARKET capitalization. Excuse me.
     

    kalamazoo

    Senior Member
    US, English
    I would also add that Bolinger's example "The weatherman said that it'll be fine tomorrow" is something that would seem normal to me without requiring any preceding context or explanation.
     
    I would also add that Bolinger's example "The weatherman said that it'll be fine tomorrow" is something that would seem normal to me without requiring any preceding context or explanation.
    Thank you so much for reminding me! I also have read in some book(s) on the English stylistics or on the history of English(-grammar?) that the demonstrative-ness of the conjunction "that" has got grammaticalized and "eroded"/almost_vanished, just like the "können" having once been meaning "kennen" or "to have to do ..." having once been meaning "to have some business/task of doing ... ," and that some (or maybe all) people never apply the "rule" pointed out by Bolinger any more.
    Would you mind letting me know if there are some statistical researches on various persons' habitual uses of that "that" in such regards/viewpoint?
     
    Addition:
    In scientific, literary, or political texts employing/with long sentences before the PE ( = Plain English) movement, the use of the conjunction "that" was inevitable to keep the readers from mis-understanding the sentence structures.
    Thanks again to Mr./Ms. kalamazoo!
     
    Of course words can belong to different word classes depending on usage. This is very often the case. In a few cases assigning a word class might be difficult or ambigious. However, I don't see how your statement relates to my reply.


    I cannot see the auxiliary interpretation at all.

    I agree that two possible analyses are possible:

    1 "kann" as modal verb with the infinitive "sprechen" omitted
    2 "kann" as full verb in the basic meaning "to be able to do something"

    The second analysis is the default, "etwas können" is very idiomatic and common. Interpretation 1 is only theoretical (see below).

    See Duden, 2a): Duden | können | Rechtschreibung, Bedeutung, Definition, Herkunft

    Argument in favor of 2 is the parallel structure with negation:

    Richtig: Ich kann Japanisch, aber ich kann kein Russisch.
    aber nicht: Ich kann Japanisch, aber ich nicht Russisch [sprechen].
    I just would have liked to say this in answer to your former reply:

    Not only in the case of word class classifications/belongingnesses, you know that you must acknowledge/anerkennen flexibilities/fluidities in classifications of a lot of grammatical phenomena. I should like to submit to you for consideration that maybe you should add the Unterschiede between pro-verbs and functional verbs, etc. to those classification flexibility/fluidity cases.
     

    kalamazoo

    Senior Member
    US, English
    I have no idea what all these rules are, but to me you just say "Jane said X" or "Jane said that X" and these are exactly the same, except that in the first one the "that' may be omitted.
     

    Hutschi

    Senior Member
    Hi, I studied the English Wikipedia:

    Pro-verb - Wikipedia

    In grammar, a pro-verb is a word or phrase that stands in place of a verb (for example, in order that the verb not need to be repeated). It does for a verb what the more widely known pronoun does for a noun. It, along with pronouns and some other word classes, form the general group of word classes pro-forms. It is a type of anaphora. ...
    But it is not available in all languages.

    In German, as we already wrote, this concept is not in the standard school grammar. It is not even mentioned as word in the Duden.
    At least I did not find one.

    In English: (Wikipedia, same place)
    does not have dedicated pro-verbs; however, a bare infinitive can generally be implied rather than expressed, such that the verbs that take bare infinitives (including most of the auxiliary verbs) can be said to double as pro-verbs. Additionally, have and be can double as pro-verbs for perfect, progressive, and passive constructions (by eliding the participle). Finally, the dummy auxiliary verb do can be used when there is no other auxiliary verb, except if the main verb is be.
    They give examples. But it will be too long to quote.


    In German we could interprete it in a similar way. But I never heared it before that it is actually be done.
    I have a question: Can a noun be a Pro-Verb in your definition?
    Das Gehen macht Spaß. Zu gehen macht Spaß. Gehen macht Spaß. (?)


    English and German are similar enough, so it would be possible. It is just not used this way in praxis. I do not know about scientific research. Maybe it can be generalized somehow.
     

    Kajjo

    Senior Member
    I have a question: Can a noun be a Pro-Verb in your definition?
    Das Gehen macht Spaß. Zu gehen macht Spaß. Gehen macht Spaß. (?)
    No pro-verbs here, but always "gehen", either as verb or noun.

    (Das) Gehen macht mir Spaß. Es macht mir Spaß. <using pronoun "es" instead of nominalized verb "Gehen">
    Zu gehen macht mir Spaß. Es macht mir Spaß. <using pronoun "es" instead of infinitive "zu gehen">


    Funktionell gesehen ersetzt ein Pronomen typischerweise ein Nomen. Es ersetzt normalerweise kein Verb. Insofern könnte man die Bezeichnung "Pro-Verb" wohl rechtfertigen, wenn es tatsächlich mal eine Verbalphrase ersetzt. In dem zweiten Beispiel ersetzt "es" die Verbalphrase "zu gehen". Persönlich würde ich das Wort aber trotzdem mit der Wortklasse "Pronomen" bezeichnen. Aber aus funktionaler Sichtweise mag das anders sein.

    In der deutschen Grammatik kann man im weiteren Sinne Nomen als Oberbegriff für alle deklinierbaren Wortarten verstehen (Substantiv, Adjektiv, Artikel, Pronomen, Numerale). Im engere Sinne (meistens Schulgrammatik) sind Nomen nur Substantive. Ich mag letztere Definition lieber, aber beide Sichtweisen haben ihre Argumente. In Vermeidung diese Definitionsunklarheit bevorzuge ich aber durchgehend Substantiv zu verwenden und das unklare Nomen zu vermeiden. Nichtsdestotrotz taucht es in Begriffen wie Nominalphrase oder dergleichen natürlich in der Bedeutung Substantiv auf.

    Fakt bleibt aber, dass "Pro-Verb" in der deutschen Grammatik kein häufig diskutierter, üblicher Begriff ist. Dagegen sind Funktionsverbgefüge, Modalverben, Vollverben und Hilfsverben etablierte Begriffe.

    Wenn Verben wie "tun" oder "machen" andere Verben ersetzen, ohne Bestandteil eines Funktionsverbgefüges zu sein, mag konzeptionell eine Art Pro-Verb-Funktion vorliegen. Aber braucht das eine eigene Bezeichnung? ich denke, nein. Denn Pronomen bilden eine eigene Wortart, Proverben wären dagegen nur funktionell unterschieden. Proverben bilden im Deutschen also keine eigene Wortklasse und das ist für mich entscheidend.
     
    Hi, Hutschi!
    I wonder if these are possible:
    1. Ich ging heute in/durch den Garten. Das Gehen machte mir viel Spaß.
    2. Ich ging heute in/durch den Garten. Heute machte es mir viel Spaß. -- Ja? (Zu) Gehen macht mir immer und überall viel Spaß.
    If they are, would you not call those  "(Das/Zu) Gehen"  Semi-Pro-VPs, because they replace/substitute and represent part of the VP(s) in the preceding context?
     

    Kajjo

    Senior Member
    If they are, would you not call those  "(Das/Zu) Gehen"  Semi-Pro-VPs, because they replace/substitute and represent part of the VP(s) in the preceding context?
    Well, reconsidering my vague answer in #34, I am still not convinced. Let's consider this proper statement:

    Ich ging heute durch den Garten. Es machte mir viel Spaß.

    So what is "es" referring to?

    (Ging|gehen) machte mir viel Spaß. -- No!
    (Durch den Garten zu gehen) macht mir viel Spaß. -- Yes.

    The "es" replaces a whole phrase. Yes, it is a verbal phrase. So a pronoun can refer to nouns, pronouns, nominal phrases, verbal phrases. But it does not replace a single verb.
     
    Well, reconsidering my vague answer in #34, I am still not convinced. Let's consider this proper statement:

    Ich ging heute durch den Garten. Es machte mir viel Spaß.

    So what is "es" referring to?

    (Ging|gehen) machte mir viel Spaß. -- No!
    (Durch den Garten zu gehen) macht mir viel Spaß. -- Yes.

    The "es" replaces a whole phrase. Yes, it is a verbal phrase. So a pronoun can refer to nouns, pronouns, nominal phrases, verbal phrases. But it does not replace a single verb.
    Thank you very much! But what about "das Gehen" in my #35? And my 2. in #35?
     

    Hutschi

    Senior Member
    Hi, Hutschi!
    I wonder if these are possible:
    1. Ich ging heute in/durch den Garten. Das Gehen machte mir viel Spaß. :tick:
    2. Ich ging heute in/durch den Garten. Heute machte es mir viel Spaß. :confused: -- Ja? (Zu) Gehen macht mir immer und überall viel Spaß.:tick:
    If they are, would you not call those  "(Das/Zu) Gehen"  Semi-Pro-VPs, because they replace/substitute and represent part of the VP(s) in the preceding context?
    Ich ging heute in den Garten. Heute machte es mir viel Spaß. :confused: - This might be possible but it does not feel well. The relation of "es" is not clear. It is chaotic/mehrdeutig. It can refer to "gehen" (literally) or "in den Garten" (expected).
    Ich ging heute durch den Garten. Heute machte es mir viel Spaß. :tick: This works.

    Repeating "heute": The second "heute" builds a contrast. Heute machte es mir viel Spaß, im Gegensatz zu sonst. Else it would not be repeated.
     
    Functional categories (like Pro-Formen and FV [ = Funktionsverben] ) are getting more and more weights these days; in the school grammars, even, the across-parts-of-speeches etymological lexical grammars ( = grammars of whys) with words' core images, incorporated into the cognitive functional semantics, are becoming the mainstream, not any longer the parts-of-speeches-based usage-knowhows cramming/rote-teaching grammars ( = grammars of hows).
    That's because students really hate crammings/rote-learnings of fragmented usage knowhows without seeing why those expressions have got those usages because they fail to know the words' historical/etymological core-images.
    For example, the lexical grammar of English explains that "to have + p.p." means "to have something in your mind (as gotten) something done," like the German and English languages histories show. Only that explanation can clarify why you can say "I've read the e-book/online-newspaper." without actually possessing a physical e-book or online-newspaper.
    Namely, more broadly speaking, "to have something" has a core image of "to be with that something as a 'part' of the intensions or 'world' of the subject," according to the lexical grammar.
    And to convince students, you also must be able to explain why these expressions could have arisen:
    She sneezed the tissue off the table.
    Tom kicked the ball to John.
    The ball floated into the cave.
    This tent sleeps four (people).
     
    Last edited:
    Ich ging heute in den Garten. Heute machte es mir viel Spaß. :confused: - This might be possible but it does not feel well. The relation of "es" is not clear. It is chaotic/mehrdeutig. It can refer to "gehen" (literally) or "in den Garten" (expected).
    Ich ging heute durch den Garten. Heute machte es mir viel Spaß. :tick: This works.

    Repeating "heute": The second "heute" builds a contrast. Heute machte es mir viel Spaß, im Gegensatz zu sonst. Else it would not be repeated.
    I agreed with the above approximately, but on second thought, I have questions:
    What do you mean by "literally" and "expected"?
    Why can "durch den Garten" NOT be "expected," unlike "in den Garten"?
     

    kalamazoo

    Senior Member
    US, English
    To 'have ' + past participle is just the present perfect tense . If someone asks me if I have read a book, it means did I carry out the act of reading the book. It doesn't matter whether or not I had a physical book or if I read it online. I never heard of 'sneezing' something 'off" anything.
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    "Das Gehen" is obviously a noun. It is derived from a verb, but it is a noun.
    Thank you so much again for your precious viewpoint.
    I guess, function-wise, you can regard it as a proVP ( = pro-"verb-phrase"), as Mr. Hutschi endorsed it.
    But, more grammatically exactly speaking, maybe you should call it a pro-infinitive-phrase or a pro-phrasal-infinitive. How would that be, I wonder? Would everyone be convinced and satisfied by that naming?
     

    Hutschi

    Senior Member
    I agreed with the above approximately, but on second thought, I have questions:
    What do you mean by "literally" and "expected"?
    Why can "durch den Garten" NOT be "expected," unlike "in den Garten"?
    Ich ging heute (in den Garten)... Heute machte es mir viel Spaß. (literally: I enjoyed to go (into the garden) -- I mean "es" cannot stand for "to go" here.
    I enjoyed to go into the garden. Heute machte es mir viel Spaß.

    If you rephrase it to: "Heute machte es mir Spaß, in den Garten zu gehen" it becomes an idiom and it is idiomatic.

    I expect here: Ich ging heute in den Garten. Heute machte es mir viel Spaß, im Garten zu sein. I expect that "to be in the Garden" is enjoying. Not the way alone.
     
    Ich ging heute (in den Garten)... Heute machte es mir viel Spaß. (literally: I enjoyed going (into the garden) -- I mean "es" cannot stand for "going" here.
    I enjoyed going into the garden. Heute machte es mir viel Spaß.

    If you rephrase it to: "Heute machte es mir Spaß, in den Garten zu gehen" it becomes an idiom and it is idiomatic.

    I expect here: Ich ging heute in den Garten. Heute machte es mir viel Spaß, im Garten zu sein. I expect that "to be in the Garden" is enjoyable. Not the way alone.
    Thank you so much! (Excuse me: I have made a few minor corrections of the quoted original sentences, just in case you overlooked them.)
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top