In the sentence, "Why don't you come along to drink coffee?"
Is it right to say "Warum kommst du nicht Kaffee trinken mit?"
It is (not?) correct, but can be said (slightly accustomed)
WARNING: WHOLE TREE NEEDED FOR PRINTOUT
ACHTUNG: GANZER BAUM BENÖTIGT ZUM AUSDRUCK
FROM HERE ON: READ ON IF YOU WISH TO KNOW WHY IT IS LIKE IT IS OR IF YOU JUST LIKE TO READ SOMETHING.
FOR THE DETAILED STEP BY STEP FOLLOWUP TO THE QUESTION: JUMP SOME PAGES DOWNWARDS.
If you are familiar with the one you are asking (a friend | a colleague) and you are speaking privately, it is okay.
It's a matter of 'politeness' versus 'familiarity'
In the german language what is always considered (and it is a trap for many native speakers, too) is the level of formality. Depending on how you ask, state or respond you are valued/levelled. It is hard to say, if it is taught or if it comes as a consequence of the possibilities the grammar offers. - You might understand better, when you come to the point that you learn to differ a simple statement, by conscious use of tone, pitch and pause. The language allows to manipulate the occasion, the participants and the outcome in forefront, through guiding the respondant by deleting possibilities out of the equation. - Sorry, but seriously, the german language is sheer magic, in almost any aspect; but it is a steep learning curve.
What you can say is: "Warum kommst' d' nich'('n) Kaffe(e) trinken mit?"
It is not as complicated, as it might seem. Its worse. So go on. Read, young Jedi.
To explain, i try, will
The equivalent meaning to "Warum kommst' d' nich' Kaffee trinken mit?" would be:
<-> "Why don't 'cha come wit', drink' som' coffee?"
That may sound harsh to you if you are used to standard english. But at least, you may understand why it takes a level of intimacy or relaxed friendliness to take that offer. It is not unpolite per sé. But it leaves the asked person in a state of overthinking your offer by first waging:
'Are we that intimate?'
For native speakers of british or american english, it is also the confusion of verbal gestures, that contradict each other.
For a U.S.-American
Anything that "ain't" fit the rules of "spoken out"-politeness, often independent of tone in situations like paying your goods on checkout in the super-market, is considered unpolite and may end open-ended into anger. Depending on the rules of your 'monetary class' and 'citizenship', your 'status' all in all: You define your place by conforming to what has to be said, not what you are doing. You can be a total prick in a suit and .. become president .. for example, or looking like a gangbanger, because you grew up so, but being the one driving the kids, caring for the elders and as a hobby you invent robots that cartograph the martian surface.
A U.K.-Britain instead
.. shows his very own class in free-time by clothing and behaviour, full throttle; At work instead, only in situations where Mr.|Ms.|Mrs. Bossy and clients, potential customers and so on are glaring through being absent. A britain is more 'delic' as in 'delicate' than an american, but not necessarily more 'delic' as in 'delicious'.
And now realize, that Germany after WorldWar II was divided into sectors
The allied states defined the zones, where whatever had to be handled by whoever in whomevers interest as it would be beneficial to whose persons substantially existence. Just like that. Thats the kind of verbal fart that came out of it, because anyone who was never a nazi, had to fear to be hanged, or shot because someone who was a total nazi accused that person. The shadiest have written the laws in the following years to save their well-being by defining clauses, which could not be understood up until today. So don't wonder that the german language was essentially torn into it's atoms and crapped together in a syndication of forms and rules, grown out of the nowadays called german angst, the fear to loose the sole freedom to just be, by just being and behaving in a specific manner.
And then came the 50s, the 60s, the ... wait! The 68er?!?
"Kaffe kipp'n gegangen?" <=> "Gone sipp'n coffee?"
That generation had no reason left, to believe in politics and the ever-spreading obvious split between poor and rich, educated and isolated; It was time to open up and bravely live an own identity, found and fund on and off their own; Consumers-only? Not anymore. And spladang! There you got it. Now all what has been put aside, what could have let the "Volk" been considered suspicious again, was breaking out.
Poetry for example has been reinvented. Songs from and for the working class against the establishment, and against those, that have been the reasons, that it all came to that weird cataclysm, the national socialists, the allies, the cold war, the possibility and soon guarantee that global nuclear warfare, would right here blast everything into particles. Here, in this land with no identity left.
"Hätt'n se Lust 'ne Kenianische Kirsche zu schnabulieren?"
I am not able at all to translate that into english; It's like : ***"Would'ye lust to [...] a kenyan cherry?" - whereas [...] is basically a verb artificially merged together from 'fabulieren' (to let your mind creatively construct a wonderful fairy describing reality abstractively in a mindgazing manner) and 'Schnabel' (engl.: beak; lat.: rostrum) which references the 'Schnabeltasse', which effectively was a straight statement, saying 'if we (whoever we are, 'Kohle-
Kumpel','Lehrer','Schüler','SchiessBudenBetreiber','Hure', whatever) go on in that manner, than we are old dead farts, so lets sip the 'spirits', like alcohol, lsd, bethel, beer, or straight pure water etc. right through that nursing-bottle. Why? Because we can, and the rest of the world thinks we are monsters, as we have been taught, that we are. And those, that don't, they are babies, or just dead old farts, again.
Kenianische Kirsche - Kenyan Cherry?
High-Land Coffee from Kenya combined with the nasty joke of sipping a black virgin, which stood for a real kenyan girl, as also for pressed hemp bathed in hemp-oil and distilled opium; Such a question you would have then heard by students, likewise, as profs, by journalists, as also car- or bicycle- -mechanics, by doctors or priests. Why? Because they could, back then and wanted to talk about anything, coded with a new merger of anything; They called it 'deutsch'.
"Kaffe. Kommste?" <-> "Coffy. Y'come?"
I mean it, german is spoken magic
Any word is a collection of thoughts and well communicated metaphors. - The language finally exploded in the seventies and tried to reflect everything that was happening all around the globe. And the speakers tried to actively preserve what was left of regional dialects, to gain some identity out of it.
In the 70s, Germans emigrated
In any country and region you can think of. Many came back. They brought ideas and brain-boggling visions of foreign folks back with them. Some just took a walk then and sat by a 'Kaffee-Stüberl', or a 'Wien'r-KoffeHus', or at 'JavaJoes', Joe whose real name was Karl-Heinz-Joachim and he wore a leather hat, like years later Crocodile Dundee would wear. Joe had a similar knife, too. And that smile; It infected friends of Joe and their kids, too.
Those wandered the years to come.
And any of them, brought back a new word, a new view, an old view, or an old word. Any of them, maybe they met before, with their cousins, their uncles, nephews and nieces and their families, which just came back from corners of the world, you might have never heard of. Maybe, they had even plants taken with them, from Ecuador, Tanzania, Indonesia, India, Australia; by ship, by plane, by bus, by bike, by car, by bycicle or by foot, feet by feet.
"Kimm mit. Omma macht leggah braune Subbe, vor'n Mittach!" <-> "Kum wit. Gremma mex teshty brawn subber, b'for'noon!"
You might hear this in an office, asked by the more brave ones.
Forced lazy and garbled talk, to show you they are interested in you; That's one (often uncomfortable) way to break the ice. Without estimating the worth, but evaluating why this happens: One might want to fumble you and watch how you react on that inner-circle-colleague-speak-introduction, as if you have been part of it for aeons there. In almost all cases you can rely on the fact, that the person is for sure interested to break the ice, but is uncomfortable speaking english and knows about the difficulty of speaking german, so wants to avoid leaving you with riddles. The latter would be much more uncomfortable than just 'swing in' with that non-chalant hey-buddy-question which essentially means:
"Hey, would you like to come over with, sip a pot of coffee and learn a bit about it each other?"
To sum these reasons up, why your sentences can be correct
In the described cultures you foremost stay true to the overall ideal your surrounding is showing you. Behave, accordingly. That can include to be 'un-nice' to be 'nice'.
"Wat los, Kolleeje? Keen Bock oof Kaffe?" <-> "Whad up, fella? Won't fell fa koffee?"
In Germany, you have on top of that, also insanely different regions reflecting totally different behaviour. The ruleset you are measured on is given not only by the way you wear your cloth, if you even do wear cloth; It won't be measured by how you move through the crowds surrounding you; On the contrary: To stick out, if you are a model and Germany is your catwalk, don't wonder why you just have to be yourself to be blamed for it. If you are a construction worker, folks are awaiting the next 'classy' joke and will speak directly to you, if they are not part of that job category, similar to the collar-worker-definition by color in Japan and the U.S.; but it's more shady and at the same time sharper faceted.
Now, we are living in the ultimate perverted version of "Back to the Future". You may call your car "K.I.T.T." and speak to it. You have the knowledge of the world at your hands, it seems.
But you need people to ask for answers on how to talk to people ...
See, how ironic this is? And that's why i'm not just answering your specific question, but take the freedom show you another facet. Just to make it possible to waken your interest.
In essence you can bluff any native german
.. by your behaviour and your clothing. By what you do and how you behave. We are consumers of global mass-media and in relation to population and income one of the reasons, why services like NetFlix, Amazon, eBay have had a hard time as had Hollywood in the beginning, but the farther they thrive, the steadier their existence.
Germans snoop and scope
We focus in hide, we learn by let-them-do-i-can-wait-and-watch-and-listen-carefully. We have fun, play trick or treat without asking so; we do it for the fun of wordplays, you may never get the gist of. And i don't talk about the complexity, the difficult grammar, which changes every 50 kilometers, the unidentifiable mumble, we can 'communicate' in. We need a babelfish in our ear to hear our self thinking and finally understand what we said before.
Never think, that a german truly knows how to speak german.
That long loong loooooong trip sideways should have helped you (the reader) in understanding, why a under any pretense wrong piece of a sentence, can for sure mean exactly what you thought you would express by saying so. As long as you'll be aware you have to visualize a big big question mark in your face, so others know that you don't know and then they can open up to you and you consider on learning that piece of information you needed together. I mean it. Never assume germans speak 'High-German'! Okay, maybe being high and speak german. That could count.
If you got that
Then add up the fact, that Germany is also a republic, a bond of states, counties, communes, all with minimum one different 'speak', not forgetting to mention the inter-regional diversities of dialects and isolated dialects actively spoken.
All that in a space that fits times into one of the smaller states of the U.S.
We are curious and ever growing in anything what we do. We try to achieve more, even if more is less. Why like to imitate, not for the sake of imitation, but to get the experience to be 'others'. Take the whole world in, suck it up.
Also: Kommst'mit'n Kaffe'kipp'n? Kenn dich'nich, ab'a wird scho'. Wat maahnste. Jeet det? Komm'wa kla'?? Oda, has'se Fresse dick? Moi, do is a schpraahchloos; d' wür'dt selbst' d' Jupp an'ne Latt'n farickt. Da socht'a nüscht mehr.
Et cetera ...
"Why don't you come along to drink coffee?" avoids asking for the purpose in response.
-> "Why don't you come along?" <=> "Warum kommst du nicht mit?"
possible responses ...
<-A:1: "For what reason?" <=> "Aus welchem Grund?"
would be 'correct', but has a bad taste (especially in german, because it might imply
"For what purpose?" <=> "Zu welchem Zweck" understating a must have, a very need to go with, as if the social life would be in danger, if not accompanying.
<- : "Warum kommst du nicht mit Kaffee trinken?"
Grammatically, I think it should be the first one, but for some reason I feel like something is wrong with it. Any feedback is appreciated
EDIT: I just saw another sentence: Alle bringen etwas zu essen oder zu trinken mit.
As you see, "mit" is clearly at the end. Any explanation regarding why "mit" cannot be in the end of the sentence in my first example?
That sentence is clearly missing (by choice of ruleset, which are all valid if you respect the language and not the Duden: from zero to six separating) commata; if you have a faible for marks and signs, which are not solely needed for readability, but for sense and pronounciation.
And to swing the sentence into the melody needed, to express what you really say, whenever you say that.
Alle bringen etwas, zu essen, oder zu trinken, mit.
-> Who?
<- All
<- Alle
-> What are they doing?
<- They (they=the many) bring something.
<- Sie (sie=die Vielen) bringen etwas.
-> What, do they bring?
<- Something.
<- Etwas.
-> How they bring something?
<- With.
<- Mit.
-> With? With "them_selves"?
<- Mit? Mit "ihnen selbst"?
-> With them_selves?
<- Mit sich selbst?
-> Does that mean they bring only their self and just say there is something, that they bring with them?
<- Soll das bedeuteten sie bringen nur ihr selbst und sagen nur da ist Etwas, das sie mit sich bringen?
-> No, they bring something with them.
<- Nein, sie bringen etwas mit ihnen (mit).
This second (mit) in thought might be your piège | StolperStein.
The Verb is 'bringen' - but there is also 'ein-|vor-|um-|auf|weg-|bei-|zu-|dar-|aus-|raus-|zurück-|mit- -bringen'. And i'm sure i've forgotten the other half available.
You could compare it to 'to bring (with you) something with in'; So you bring something in. But you bring it with in, as in 'Take it with you!' - 'Okay, i bring it with me!', you could also say Okay, i bring it with in!' - It is dependent of what should attain focused. - In your Question the definition is clear (at least it should be); it is not about the eating and drinking, it is about the people. So the 'mit' is part of the verb 'mitbringen'. That your folks bring something 'with' them is not in question, but it could interesting to know what they bring with; means It is not explicitly necessary to announce that they are in fact bringing some with (with them).
-> So, what is it?
<- So, was ist es?
-> That something? That is something to drink.
<- Das Etwas? Das ist etwas zu Trinken.
-> Anything else, besides their selfs?
<- Irgendwas anderes, nebst ihrer selbst?
-> Yes, something to eat.
<- Ja, etwas zu essen.
-> Means, they bring something to eat with them and something to drink.
<- Bedeutet, sie bringen etwas zu Essen mit ihnen und etwas zu Trinken.
-> To be precise, not exactly to eat AND drink ...
<- Um präzise zu sein, nicht exakt zu Essen UND zu Trinken ...
-> For eating OR for drinking.
<- Zum Essen ODER zum Trinken.
-> Ah! So to say: They bring something to eat or drink with!
<- Ah! So_zu_sagen: Sie bringen etwas zu Essen oder zu Trinken mit!
->[[They]bring]+[something][+[to eat]+[or]+[(to)drink]]]+[with (them)!]
<-[[Sie]bringen]+[etwas]+[[zu essen]+[oder]+[(zu)trinken]]+[mit(ihnen)!]
The final question is, aren't separable prefixes supposed to go to the end of the sentence? What is the reason for "mit" to NOT go the end of the clause and precede "Kaffee trinken"?
As i already tried to explain in the inbetween of the translated dialogue, regarding the theoretically doubled 'mit', which i think is the rock that blocks your sight: And regarding you possibly might remember if you have read the long long long excourse, before splattering the technicality: There is in fact no reason more weighing in to do it this way, or that way. In the german language there are rules, rules for rules and rules for no rules. You can bend as if it was bamboo and it whiplashes straight in your face if you assume, or even more worse do false pretend you already understood it. That's not just the case for you. It is because it is one of the oldest languages, that was exported, reimported, exported reimported and so on.
The german language is extremely flexible.
The reason why, is a necessity to be able to learn and follow and also bulge the rules, where applyable; it is based on that sole fact, that it is a recreation of its own from the oldest days. And whereever poets, lyricists found sinkholes in the ruleset, they invented new rules that would fit into the system, without breaking it.
German, nowadays, is able to represent a near perfect word-by-word translation and reprize seemingly forgotten, but none the less existing rule sets, which found there way in, from languages, that are comparably complex and alienating to the rest of languages spoken globally, like swedish | norsk , russian, estnian, usbeki, latin, romanian, xhosa and a nice roundup of creoles.
If you wish to know about the possibilities how ONE simple sentence can be 'performed', just ask a question, with that one explicit task, e.g.:
Task: Express the following sentence in a dialect | mundart that has yet not found its way into the answer. Additionally point out the name of the mundart and specify an area where it is and where it was spoken and where it is saved in written form, including extincted languages and dialects, as long as there is any source that verifies it.
Something like that.
Hope, it helps!
