The German verb has to come second. The first position can be filled with whatever. Thus the phrase "gibt es" can totally be part of statements
Es gibt in Berlin gute Bäcker.
In Berlin gibt es gute Bäcker.
As the other answer already mentions, "Gibt es" is the order you'll find in questions.
Gibt es in Berlin gute Bäcker?
AND it can be also a ...
Ich weiß nicht.
is used in colloquial language to express uncertainty, doubt and disagreement, usually when asked for an opinion on something.
For example, I wouldn't be surprised to witness the following dialogue:
(Two girls in a shop)
A: Was hältst du von diesem Kleid?
B: Ich weiß nicht... - (thinks about it briefly) - Wenn du das ...
Both are correct. To me, Ich esse gerne Pizza hints at a question like Was ist Dein Lieblingsessen, whereas Ich esse Pizza gern would be more appropriate as an answer to Magst Du Pizza? That is, I would put the important word (the one carrying new information) at the end of the phrase.
Welcome to GL&U!
Your sentence uses a double infinitive forming the perfect tense in a dependent / subordinate clause. That sounds kind of complicated, but break it down into its smaller parts and then put it back together (I did also find an English page for you that further explains some of these peculiarities).
First, recognize that a subordinate or ...
The secret is: Pronoun before noun
Kann Peter Klaus helfen?
Normal word order. Peter is subject, Klaus is object, so Peter helps Klaus.
Kannst du Klaus helfen?
Still normal word order. Technically pronoun before noun applies, but it doesn't matter anyway. Du is subject, Klaus is object, so you help Klaus.
Kannst du ihm helfen?
And again normal ...
Neither sentence is wrong. German word order is rather flexible, and while there is a tendency to have the second part of a split verb at the end, it isn't always the case. Possible reasons for pulling it to the front include improved understandability (when the intervening part would be long) and putting emphasis on a specific part of the sentence.
In this ...
The sentence is correct. While it is much more common to have the verb at the end, in this particular case there is an emphasis on the need to return, while the destination is rather a side information. This can be expressed by using this word order.
You can find some background information on canoo.net. The technical term that applies here is that of a "...
First of all, it is important to note, that 'nicht' can either negate a complete sentence or a verb or a noun with a definite article.
If you negate the whole sentence, as in: the whole statement is false, 'nicht' wants to go to the last position in the sentence, as in:
Schläfst du schon? - Nein, ich schlafe noch nicht. (Sonst würde ich nicht antworten.)
The German Wikipedia article on Verberststellung (that is positioning of the verb before the subject) gives three examples for this syntactical order in subordinate clauses:
Hätte ich mehr Zeit gehabt, hätte ich einen kürzeren Brief geschrieben.
(Alternativ: Wenn ich mehr Zeit gehabt hätte, hätte ich...)
War der Auftritt ...
los is a regular adjective meaning off (in the sense of unleashed or detached). The basic idiomatic expression using los is the following sentence:
Etwas ist los.
Something is unleashed/moving (figuratively: going on).
los does not become an adverb here as the sentence is simply assigning the attribute los to the subject etwas. los is an adjective used ...
What Thorsten Link wrote is correct, but I like to give another example on how to place the nicht. I give a bit too literal translations to emphasize it.
(And a note on Examen: it's Prüfung, always. Examen is the ancient god of Prüfungen, the final one after which you get your degree. But only for non-technical fields, where they still summon such gods.)
This grammar feature is called prepositional phrase in the Nachfeld, and it's not restricted to separable verbs (though it's easier to notice with separable verbs).
Basically, when you have a long and complex prepositional phrase, you can put it after the main sentence, and that means it comes after a separable prefix or the infinitive/participle group that ...
Transforming the following sentence:
Ich sah fünf Flugzeuge abheben.
to perfect yields:
Ich habe fünf Flugzeuge abheben sehen.
The rule is that if a perfect participle (Partizip II) follows an infinitive it takes the form of the infinitive too. So “gesehen“ becomes “sehen“.
“Ich habe fünf abhebende Flugzeuge gesehen“ is a correct sentence, but it is ...
The idea of keeping the finite verb and participles/infinitives together does not apply here, as the infinitive clause does not belong closely to the finite verb. It's an object.
Dann bekam er die Chance, mit einem Botaniker zusammen fünf Jahre lang durch Süd- und Mittelamerika zu reisen.
This is how you should write. Or speak. This is sound.
I wouldn't trust this TeKaMoLo rule too much. It is often "wrong". If anything, it is good advice but I can write down pages and pages and pages of examples where it does not apply.
So it is not a rule that is broken. It is a "most likely" scenario.
Generally, German word order follows this rule: "The more relevant the later"
You can replace immer with ...
Welcome to the wonderful German world of free word order and inserted relative clauses! So perfect that not even Germans do it right all the time (even if they're in the Spiegel).
in dem Wladimir Putin und Alexis Tsipras in Moskau vor die Presse traten
is a relative clause which can be turned into a main clause to read
Wladimir Putin und Alexis ...
To be precise, "Die kleine Raupe Nimmersatt" doesn't translate to "The very hungry caterpillar". The English title is the original one, and the German one is a translation.
I'd say the translator allowed himself a certain degree of freedom, as it is common in literature. "Nimmersatt" is a nice word to express "very hungry" very concisely. In fact, it goes ...
The short answer is: other than in the USA, where it is common to add to names of towns and other inhabited places an abbreviation to indicate the federal state, e.g.
this is not common in German speaking countries.
There are, though, ...
Both word orders are correct and only slightly differ in emphasis: Whatever you put first in this case, is slightly more focussed by the question (at least that’s my impression, even native speakers can disagree over this). Some examples in context:
Ich kann in Hamburg, München und Köln einen Hut kaufen. Aber: Kann ich in Berlin einen Hut kaufen? [...
Die Kommas gehören unabhängig von der Wortstellung dort nicht hin.
Dir hat der neue Film also nicht gefallen?
Also hat dir der neue Film nicht gefallen?
Der neue Film hat dir also nicht gefallen?
sind alle drei grammatikalisch richtig und vom Sinn her gleichwertig.
Das Wort „also“ stellt hier einen Bezug auf einen im ...
Think differently: It's not about placing gern "on either side" of the object, the basic rule is that adverbs that modify other parts of the sentence ("nicht", "auch", ...) are placed directly in front of the part they modify. So in "... gern Gemüse", gern applies specifically to Gemüse.
This is also true if an adverb modifies a verb. However, in a main ...
The reason they put the sentence in this order is a pun with a very common German proverb of unknown origin:
Was du heute kannst besorgen, das verschiebe nicht auf morgen.
The word order was adapted to meet rhyme metrics, which is often found in poems.
The difference is not in meaning, but in emphasis.
Schön ist es hier = "Wow, nice place!"
This emphasizes the pleasantness of the place as opposed to other qualities, such as expensiveness of a restaurant (which might well go along with niceness).
Es ist schön hier = "This is a nice place."
This emphasizes the niceness as well, but not as ...
Same order. Usually one would not include the state, like "Heidelberg, Germany", because we don't have that many city names that exist multiple times. But if they do, you would write it in brackets:
Walldorf (Baden), Germany
You usually don't even include the whole state (Baden-Württemberg), but the informal region (Baden). But it would also be okay to ...
Die Beispiele können nicht einheitlich betrachtet werden. Es handelt sich um ganz unterschiedliche Erscheinungen. Beispiel 1 enthält nach meiner Ansicht nicht einmal einen Nebensatz.
Beispiel 1: Es gibt Leute, die können keine Nebensätze mehr bilden.
Dieses Phänomen ist weder neu noch ein Beispiel für "Sprachverfall", sondern altbekanntes, klassisches ...
The first one is grammatical, the second one is an error often committed by native speakers of English because they translate word by word.
But German main clauses don't have invariant word order, instead they follow topological fields. In particular, the finite verb should occupy the second of the fields. Since the subclause occupies the first field, ...