"Wer nicht für uns ist, ist gegen uns."
Translation:Whoever is not for us is against us.
37 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
"who is not with us is against us" too many missing correct answers in this section
"Whoever is not with us is against us" was acceptable, and seems to make more sense as an English translation.
I am not very good with terminology, but I think "Wer nicht fur uns ist" is a subordinate sentence, as in, it wouldn't make sense on its own; so, whenever you have a sentence that doesn't make sense on its own, you need to put the verb at the end. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong :)
I think that in both a subordinate cause and a relative cause the verbs go last. Relative cause is when a relative pronoun (who, where etc..) begins the sentence.
A relative clause is normally classed as a specific type of subordinating clause. The easiest way to tell if something is a subordinating clause is to see if it stands on its own. "Who is not for us" does not stand on its own (except as a question), so it must be subordinate.
Ok, what is with "gegen"? It says it's both "for" and "against". Is the meaning there like "I run in your direction = Ich laufe gegen dich" as well as "I'm against alcohol = Ich bin gegen Alkohol"?
This is the same in English, into the wind can also be said as against the wind, especially if you are trying to sound poetic.
"Ich laufe gegen dich" means i run into you as in "agains your body". In your direction whould be "Ich laufe zu dir"
Here "wer" is not a question but a conjunction (the same as in English). Because it's a conjunction the verb (ist) goes to the end. The location of "nicht" is a lot more awkward because sometimes it goes next to the verb at the end and sometimes earlier.
I'm guessing that "Whom/Whomever is not for us, is against us." would require "Wen" instead of "Wer" at the beginning of the sentence?
And is grammatically wrong in English and German. If you would replace it with "he" then "who" is appropriate. if you would replace using "him" then "whom" is appropriate. (eg he is not for us so use who is not against us).
Answering your question "Whom" can be "wen" (accusative) or "wem" (dative) "wen hat du getroffen?" and "wem hat du dieses Buch gegeben?" (to whom did you give this book)
"And is grammatically wrong in English and German. If you would replace it with "he" then "who" is appropriate. if you would replace using "him" then "whom" is appropriate."
...then it's not grammatically incorrect to use 'whom' in English? It sounds to me like whether or not Who or Whom is used depends entirely on context outside of the content of the sentence in question.
"Who" and "whom" have different grammatical functions.
"Who" is a subject:
Who is talking?
She is a woman who has done many things.
Everyone who wants to come on the trip should sign up today.
"Whom" is an object, used to follow prepositions or to receive the action of a verb (when you would use an accusative/dative form in German, although English uses the same forms for accusative/dative):
To whom should I address this letter?
To whom it may concern:
In speech, however, many people just use "who."
No, my point was it was grammatically incorrect to use "whom" in your example "to whom did you give this book" is perfectly acceptable.
It is true however than many people, including many journalists, have dropped "whom" altogether and use only "who" in all cases. However using "whom" when it should be "who" is always bad grammar.
Oh god, someone break it down please. What sorcery is behind this sentence structure?
"Wer nicht für uns ist, ist gegen uns" "Wer" introduces the subordinate clause "Wer nicht fuer uns ist". Since it is a subordinate clause, the verb is kicked to final position. I am not sure why "nicht" is before "fuer", but I can never figure out the placement of "nicht" anyway. The subordinate clause "Wer nicht fuer uns ist" takes up the first position of the sentence (and acts as a subject, I believe), so the verb "ist" follows. "Gegen" and "uns" are then placed as they usually would be.
Going through my Duolingo notes, I could find only 7 subordinating conjunctions and "wer" is not included with them.
So "wer" always introduces a subordinating clause?
"Wer" is like "who" in English. "Who" can be used to either introduce a question ("Who is that") or to introduce a subordinate clause ("Whoever he is, he shall fail."). In German, "wer" can do the same, it can introduce a question or it can introduce a subordinate clause. Also, "wer" (as "who" in English) introduces a special sub-type of subordinate clause called a relative clause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_clause). There are a few ways to introduce a relative clause. One way would actually be to use the relative pronouns (der, das, die, and die and their inflections). The question words in German ("wer", etc.) are normally only used to introduce a relative clause which has an antecedent from another sentence. This might explain it better than I can: http://www.lsa.umich.edu/german/hmr/grammatik/relativsaetze/relative.html
I know this is an old comment, but to be a bit more specific and technical, wer is to be used as a relative pronoun only when the antecedent is omitted as in the given sentence.
I had "Who is not ...." it was accepted. To me the "Who' was how I remembered the expression.
