"Yes, me included."
Translation:Ja, einschließlich mir.
As a general rule, when not a question, the verb always comes second. In the event the verb gets pushed to the end of a sentence (like when modals are used) whatever pushed it to the end takes that second spot
While you're mostly correct about the verb business (things get funky when we get into subordinate clauses), "einschließlich" is not a verb at all. Think of it as a preposition translating literally to "inclusive of me."
That's true of many European languages; there are a number of language where the same types of functional words come after the object.
i've just had 'einschliesslich' with both the dative and accusative? can it be both? Is it dependant on moevement as with other prepositions?
I gather from comments here and elsewhere that historically it would have been "meiner" as einschließlich was expected to take an object in the genitive case but this has declined in the spoken language as sounding stilted and archaic, with the dative replacing the genitive, so meiner => mir.
In order to use MIR there must have been a verb in the former sentence which asks for the dative. For example:
Der Lehrer GIBT den Kindern gute Noten. Einschliesslich DIR? Ja, einschliesslich MIR.
(Dative because of the verb „geben“.)
The same is true for verbs which ask for the accusative. For example:
SIEHT der Lehrer alle Kinder? Einschliesslich DICH? Ja, einschliesslich MICH. (Accusative because of the verb „sehen“.)
Without context it is not possible to know, which one has to be used and both, MIR and MICH should be accepted as correct answers.
As explained in the other discussion, this is not correct. "Einschließlich" is a preposition that asks for the genitive (which would sound rather stilted and is therefore replaced by the dative here). The preceding verb is irrelevant. It's kind of ok to use the dative, but the accusative is wrong.
Der DUDEN sagt mir, dass "einschließlich" eine Präposition sein kann ("einschließlich der Unkosten") wie du es verstehst. Oder es ist ein Adverb, wie andere es verstehen.
Ja, es gibt auch das Adverb "einschließlich". Da allerdings im obigen Satz "einschließlich" offensichtlich kein Adverb sein kann, sehe ich die Relevanz dieser Beobachtung nicht ganz...
About the same difference as in English "me included" and "me too". Not much difference, but still a little.
You can break the German verb "einschließen" like in "Meine Freunde schließen mich ein" -> "My friends include me". But "einschließlich" can't be broken into parts, without getting a different meaning like "ein" -> "a" or "schließlich" -> "finally".
How would one use "eingeschlossen" in this sentence? Or is that not possible for some reason?
A german told me that you can say "einschließlich meiner Wenigkeit"... is that really true?
Yes, but dont use it. It is eloquent and antiquated. If you don't speak a very sophisticated german it will seem strange
If you want to build the phrase like this, it would be: "Ja, mich mitgerechnet".
That is perfect German. You can use both "Ja, mich eingeschlossen" and "Ja, einschließlich mir". While the grammar is different, the meaning is the same.
Would this be comparable to 'yes, me included' and 'yes, including me'?
"Ich auch" is accepted but not "mich auch". Would it not, however, depend on the context?
You cheeky sods! You intentionally put "yes me included" instead of the more accurate translation "yes including me". I admit that making that mistake teaches me more about the word, but still! Boo!
Another exception. German is full of exceptions. Why learn the word order when there are so many exceptions.
I peaked at the translation and wrote "Ja, eingenschlossen mir." Why is it wrong?