Timeline for Why are there both "was" and "wozu" in this sentence: "Auf jeden Fall ist es mir vollkommen egal, was Sie denken, wozu Sie ein Recht hätten!"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 8 at 22:15 | comment | added | user unknown | "… konditional, dass er diese Recht hätte (, wenn ...)". Er denkt, dass er das Recht dazu hat. Will man unterstreichen, dass man dem gerade nicht zustimmt, würde man sagen "dass er das Recht habe." Die Fachwörter, die diese Aussage unterfüttern sollten, fehlen mir allerdings, daher nur ein Kommentar. | |
| Sep 8 at 22:12 | comment | added | user unknown | Ich meine, es sollte auf Deutsch lauten: "Auf jeden Fall ist mir vollkommen egal, wozu Sie denken, ein Recht zu haben". Die dazu passende Begründung kann ich leider nicht liefern, nur meinem Sprachgefühl folgen und theoretisch dilettieren: Gelesen habe ich den dt. Satz beim ersten Mal, als würde dem Anderen mit dem letzten Teilsatz eingeräumt, dass er durchaus das Recht hat dies zu denken, mit Betonung auf dem ersten "Sie", nicht auf "denken". "… egal, was Sie denken, wozu Sie ein Recht haben!" wäre auch ok. Dem anderen soll ja unterstellt werden, dass er das Recht zu etwas hat, nicht … | |
| Sep 8 at 21:59 | history | edited | user unknown | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
No Thanks in advance, please. "Recht" in the headline capitalized.
|
| Sep 8 at 12:54 | history | edited | RHa | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Sep 8 at 10:01 | comment | added | Alazon | @RHa: Scope-marking "was" cannot be a Korrelat that signals a following question, because the verb "denken" does not select a question (semantically). | |
| Sep 8 at 9:45 | comment | added | quarague | As a German native speaker I read the German, thought 'what?', read the English, understood the meaning, reread the German, and then though 'yeah, it can mean the same as the English'. So the German is technically correct but definitely not easy or straightforward to parse. | |
| Sep 8 at 8:59 | comment | added | RHa | @Alazon the object is present twice here, as a pronoun and as a subordinate clause. I don't know if this is a Korrelat in a strict sence, but it is at least similar. | |
| Sep 8 at 8:46 | comment | added | Alazon | @RHa: No, the object of "denken" is already the next embedded clause, so it cannot additionally have "was" as its object. | |
| Sep 8 at 8:33 | history | edited | guidot♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Substatves are uppercase
|
| Sep 8 at 8:32 | answer | added | Alazon | timeline score: 4 | |
| Sep 8 at 6:43 | comment | added | RHa | I believe you have been tricked by English grammar here. In English, there is only one pronoun despite the presence of two verbs (to be entitled to and to think). In the German sentence, each of these gets its own object as a pronoun. | |
| Sep 8 at 5:37 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Sep 8 at 0:08 | history | edited | Eli | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
clarifications and additional info
|
| Sep 7 at 23:14 | answer | added | Tilman Schmidt | timeline score: 4 | |
| Sep 7 at 23:07 | comment | added | Tilman Schmidt |
Es ist mir egal, wozu ... and Es ist mir egal, was Sie denken, wozu ... are both grammatically correct but convey different meanings.
|
|
| Sep 7 at 22:23 | comment | added | RDBury | Do you have the full German version of the sentence? It's hard to compare your version with the book's translation if you don't say what the book's translation is. | |
| Sep 7 at 21:30 | history | asked | Eli | CC BY-SA 4.0 |