3

Er spielt mit der Unwissenheit einiger, dass der Begriff man auch die Frauen mit einschließt.

What's that mit in front of the verb einschließen?

1
  • 1
    I think the moral here is that words are complicated, and just because a word is mainly used one way doesn't mean it can only be used that way. So it's best to look up a word in a dictionary if it's being used in a way you don't expect, even if you already "know" the word. An example in English is "but", which is mainly a conjunction, but it can also be used as an adverb: "He is but a child."
    – RDBury
    Mar 9 at 16:39

1 Answer 1

3

"Mit" can also be an adverb. This Duden page is relevant.

It's hard to tell the exact meaning of "mit" in the quoted sentence, because it is almost redundant. "Einschließen" already means "to include", but, for some reason, it feels very natural to add the "mit", at least in spoken language.

2
  • 3
    Well, in contrast to just "einschließen", "mit einschließen" does indicate that whatever is being included is not the only thing included. Granted, when speaking "normally", this is almost always the intention when using just "einschließen" already, but to be precise, you could also include someone and no-one else (i.e. add someone to an otherwise empty set). Mar 9 at 15:15
  • 1
    The use of "mit" as an adverb is also listed on DWDS and "mit eingeschlossen" is called out as an example under definition 1b. English and German Wiktionaries include adverbial "mit" as well, though I don't think they cover this use specifically. German Wiktionary comes closer, their example: "Dieses Hemd gehört nicht mit in die Buntwäsche."
    – RDBury
    Mar 9 at 16:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.