English is a SVO language.
SVO means: Subject, Verb, Object(s) in exactly this order.
But English is the only Germanic language with this word order. German and all other Germanic languages (Dutch, Afrikaans, Yiddish, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian and many others) are V2 languages.
V2 means: Verb at position 2.
SVO is a more strict subtype of V2.
In German the ...
Yes, beeilen is always reflexive in modern usage. You cannot say *er beeilte or *sie beeilte ihn.
The counterexample you gave is a different word: herbeieilen. This consists of the intransitive verb eilen, "to hurry", and the separable prefix herbei. The compound verb is not directly translateable, but it does not mean "hurry up", I ...
In main clauses, German uses V2 (the verb is on second position), and that means VO most of the time.
German (V2 -> VO): Julia ruft den Hund.
English (VO): Julia calls the dog.
Latin (OV): Iulia canem vocat.
However, thanks to the declined articles and cases that German has, it is more flexible, and you can use a different word order to emphasize parts ...
In contemporary German beeilen is always reflexive in usage.
This was not always the case. When reading literature from the 19. Century you may come across rare sentences like this:
Es wird Gewitter, sagte Elisabeth, indem sie ihren Schritt beeilte.Storm, Theodor: Immensee. Berlin, 1852.
Durch einen Brief des Cardinals Schonberg, aus Rom vom November 1536, ...
"Sich die Ehre geben" is an idiom. It means something in the lines of "to take pride in gracing an event with an appearance" or is used as a fancy way to say "to be there", "to attend" for persons who are an honor for the event. In a broader sense, it means "to do oneself the honor of doing sth", but it's ...
In general, being "just about to [do something]" means that the action is in the immediate future, not already ongoing. Possible translations would be "kurz davor sein, [etwas] zu [tun]" or "gerade [etwas tun] wollen" or "im Begriff sein, [etwas] zu [tun]".
"I was just about to call you" => "Ich ...
The anwer guidot gave, already stated that “there is no single word order in German”, and that's why it is so important that the flexion endings clarify the relation.
The emphasis part seems not quite correct to me. As it is usually hard to understand emphasis from telling “the rules” alone, here two realistic Q&A examples to help you understand:
Often people write wars sloppily in written colloquial speech. Both variants, wars and war’s, are a reduced form of war es. “Ich war es” is the correct translation of “It was me”.
That wars is as possible as war’s. So your dictionary is correct.
The rule behind that is here, and wars is meant appropriately:
In den folgenden Fällen wird üblicherweise kein ...
It's "mir wurde eine CD gegeben", your sentence therefore is "Nach der Untersuchung wurde mir eine CD mit den Befunden gegeben."
The general form of the verb is "jemandem etwas geben". Jemandem is the object, etwas is the subject.
In your sentence, "mir" is therefore the object, whereas "CD" is the subject. ...
That is exactly the right translation. As you realized there are two different objects with believing:
Believe somebody (takes dative case in German)
Believe something (takes accusative case in German)
In German it is totally valid to use both at the same time and as you see above they even take different cases. But the sentence contains an additional „...
The asked for counterpart in my opinion is
dingsen ( See e.g. non-authoritatively here).
It is in the family of Dings(bums) (See Duden) for currently eluding substantives and Dingenskirchen (also Duden) for locations, the latter one having the benefit of looking like a real village name. All of these are colloquial.
Since the typical use is in real-time ...
When you can replace any verb with "get", you also can replace "lose" with "get", and still everyone will understand you, right? This means that, when you say "Tom gets money" everyone will understand "Tom loses money".
So, the very clear answer is: No, there is no German verb with this feature.
But I do not ...
Bins and wars are mergers of the verb forms bin and war, respectively (1st and 3rd person singular indicative of sein), with the personal pronoun es. Or shorter:
bins = bin + es
wars = war + es
Other answers that were posted so far claim that these forms were sloppy or even wrong, because an apostrophe was missing (bin's and war's). However, at least since ...
Both versions are possible:
Ich sagte zu mir selbst: »Mach dir nicht zu viel aus dem Pfiff.«
Ich sagte zu mir selbst, dass ich mir nicht zu viel aus dem Pfiff machen sollte.
I think #1 sounds better, because direct speech always sounds more vivid and alive than indirect speech.
Also consider another begin:
Ich dachte mir: »Mach dir nicht zu viel aus dem ...
Treffen can have a broad range of meanings (DWDS lists 8) and it can be used with an accusative object or with auf + accusative.
In most cases, the perfect uses haben.
However, when used with auf in the meaning of 'to hit, to encounter', which is the case here, sein must be used.
Hakenschlagen ist ein Fachwort aus der Jägersprache.
Der Hase verprügelt hier keine Haken, er ändert in schnellem Lauf blitzartig die Richtung, um seine Verfolger abzuschütteln.
Es handelt sich also um einen hakenschlagenden Hasen, nicht um einen Haken schlagenden.
I assume that the problem is that, while the sentences feel roughly synonymous, the word order is different. The interesting part of the sentences is the one I put in square brackets, the so-called Mittelfeld (Wikipedia).
Wir haben [ den Stuhl zur Schwester ] gebracht.
Wir haben [ der Schwester den Stuhl ] gebracht.
While it is true that German word order ...
The finite verb in the sentence is kann, i.e. the declined form of the modal verb können. Modal verbs (können, wollen, mögen, dürfen, sollen, müssen) are combined with the infinitive form of a verb. Hence, only the infinitive dauern is correct here.
Your first German example is quite wrong. The simple passive is constructed with 'werden', never with 'sein':
Die Tastatur wird zum Tippen verwendet.
The Zustandspassiv (combination of past participle + sein) is only used to express the result of an action with perfective aspect:
Der Koffer ist gepackt.
Using a keyboard is a continuous (or at the most, ...
When a sentence is turned into passive, the accusative object becomes the subject. But a dative object still remains a dative object.
Because of this, "Er gab mir eine CD" becomes "Mir wurde [von ihm] eine CD gegeben". "Ich wurde eine CD gegeben" is incorrect because mir is dative and must appear unchanged in the passive ...
This is not a sentence. A sentence has (most often) a subject and always a predicate. But in this group of words there is no predicate. The core of a predicate is a verb, but although the word »gibt« is a verb, it still is not the sentence's predicate (or a part of it).
A full sentence might be:
Ein Held, der sich heute bei euch die Ehre gibt, trägt einen ...
Some concepts from English can be applied to German, some can't.
In this case, your confusion is the result of the English verb form present continuous: "I am going", "You are going", "Are you going?".
This form just doesn't exist in German, so it isn't used in questions, either. So instead normal present tense is used:
saugen is used if there's an undertow (der Sog)
lutschen means to put something in your mouth for a prolonged time and using your tongue
Einen Bonbon lutschen
Lutsch meinen Schwanz (col. vulg. suck my dick)
Das lutscht! (that sucks!; likely to be literally translated from the English expression)
Den Boden saugen (to vacuum)
Am Strohhalm saugen
Engl: to suckle, to suck
You need a tube that is connected at one end to a chamber with a pressure that is lower than on the other end of the tube. Then this lower pressure will cause fluids (liquids and gasses) to move into the chamber where the lower pressure is.
This is the principle of a »Staubsauger« (vacuum cleaner) and of a »Saugpumpe« (lift ...
As the others have already pointed out, German is often analyzed as being a V2 language. However, there are reasons why some grammarians analyze it as an OV language. The main reason is that in infinite clauses, German has OV order:
ein Bild sehen
einen Baum pflanzen
ein Lied singen
A VO language like English has the exact opposite order:
to see a picture
The verb is not treffen but auf etw. treffen. This classifies it as a verb of motion, thus it is conjugated with sein. I believe it's mostly used in the past tense, i.e. "auf etwas/jemanden getroffen sein", alhough planemaker mentions in the comments that other tense are possible and in frequent use.
I concur, that the above sentence sounds a bit ...
Many English verbs in the IT are not translated in the current German. For example
scannen (to scan)
pushen (to push)
pullen (to pull)
Their perfekt-form should be "gescannt", "gepusht", and so on, if they would be used as regular verbs. But they are not. My current experience is that many native German speakers build a half German/half ...
The nominative is the "normal" thing - compare the English "there is no doubt".
The accusative in your second example is just the quirk in the German language that we express existance of something with "geben" - a transitive verb that wants (at least) an accusative object. (while English happily uses "is")