Wer sieht euch(/dich/Sie)?
The one doing the seeing is in nominative case (the subject of the sentence is always in nominative case):
"I" = ich
"you" = du/ihr/Sie
"who" = wer
The one being seen is in accusative case (the object of the sentence is usually in accusative case):
"me" = mich
"you" = dich/euch/Sie
"who" = wen
Note that the question-word wer has roughly the same ending as der would** (the interrogative pronoun inflects with almost the same pattern as the definite article):
Thank you! Your answer is most helpful! I wrote it in my German notebook so I can look back at it for reference. I took a grammer class in high school, but never heard of these words: nom, acc, genitive, dative. I feel like I have to go back to school to learn yet another language! =)
You say that the subject of a sentence is always in nominative case, but that the object of a sentence is USUALLY in accusative case.
Could you explain (or point me to a resource about) when the object is NOT in accusative case?
Thanks so much for these clear explanations!
Some verbs take a dative object. https://www.thoughtco.com/frequently-used-german-dative-verbs-4071410
German pronouns have the same gender, same number, and same case as their antecedents.
If the person who (wer) refers to is grammatically masculine, the so is the pronoun. If the person referred to is grammatically neuter, so is the pronoun. etc.
At least, that is my understanding.
'Whom do you see' should be accepted, DL. ['Wen' is the accusative (and in English is 'whom'). 'who' would be used for the nominative. In practice many English speakers would use 'who' here but 'whom' is the technically correct answer and would also be used by many English speakers.]
Well, like I said, this is not a mistake in modern English. The word "whom" is rarely used, even in formal writing, and almost never is spoken English. Historically you are correct, but languages change. Dictionaries have notes now that say "who" has taken over from "whom" in the majority of cases.
Why stop with this particular bit of ignorance? Why not allow "good" for "well"; it's about as common as "who" for "whom". Why don't we just eliminate adverbs altogether and just use the adjective form. People do that extensively. "Don't" for "doesn't" is widespread as is "seen" for "saw". Hanging prepositions are practically used as punctuation, "like" follows every instance of "It's" in many Americans' speech. If we are going to embrace ignorance, let's do it with gusto!
I'd like it if "whom" were used more widely, but the problem is that it's been "long gone" from most people's minds. The "it's like" phrase is fairly new, on the other hand, and not as widely accepted. But following the idea of "correct usage," I remember C.S.Lewis mentioning that the words loose their meaning, too, as when we use "gentleman." In Spanish, for example, "gentleman" is translated as 'caballero,' and it's used for most any man, whether he has a horse ('caballo') or not! :)
BenNew3, et al:
Would you like to learn a language which is 'almost correct'? Or, would you like to learn a language which is 100% correct?
Even, EVEN, if it is more correct than, ''like wot us plebs use''?
Being serious. Yes, by all means, if you just want to get by in a language, learn a few phrases and how the locals speak the language. Do just that. But, if you wish to understand a language, you need to study its' correct structure, syntax, grammar et cetera.
I suppose one might call it, Becoming Educated!
99 out of 100 black people sat in the back of the bus, than there was Rosa Parks. 99 of 100 black people were fighting racism with racism, then there was MLKJ. 99 out of 100 women who could fly never crossed the Atlantic, then there was Amelia Earhart. And if 99 out of 100 people have trouble articulating what they want to convey because of; laziness? Lack of education? Just not caring? I'd rather be that 1 percent who can.
"You" and "you all" are different. Often times people will say "you all" to try describe words in other languages like the German "ihr" or the Spanish "Vosotros"/"Ustedes", but they only do that to try to up it in a way that sounds less confusing since "you" is both singular and plural. "You", as a plural, is "ihr" where as "you all" would be something along the lines of "ihr alle". Looking at it that way may seem a bit picky, but it's for the sake of learning it the proper way. It's all right to translate it like that because it has the same meaning, but Duo wants to get the point across that "ihr" is plural "you" and doesn't incorporate the word "all". All in all, translating it the way you did wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for the fact that that's just not what Duo wants.
In German there is a distinction between informally addressing a single person (du), informally addressing multiple people (ihr) and formally addressing any number of people (Sie). So the "all" does not belong to the verb, it belongs to the "you". It should accept both - with and without "all" - as both forms are valid in English. If it doesn't accept both, please report it.
Don't accept it. It is undeniable that the vast majority of Americans, including many journalists and authors, use who when they should use whom, but it is still incorrect.
Dictionaries usually make note of the fact that the misuse is widespread, but I haven't seen one yet that says it is okay. I'll admit I haven't looked hard. :)
It's very possible that whom will someday - perhaps someday soon - fall victim to the fate already suffered by things like predicate nominatives: relegated to "formal usage".
There's a German story that is labeled in English "It's him". The German title is "Er ist Es". "Formal" English would have it as "It is he".
In short, educators are losing the battle for whom as they have lost so many others before.
"Wen seht ihr?" should be translated to "Whom are you seeing?"
If you think that is confusing... try this exercise... lol