German word order is flexible. You can often times switch around the direct object and the subject because you are still able to tell them apart based on case. For example, saying "Ich möchte einen Apfel" can be turned into "Einen Apfel möchte ich." Another example would be, "Wir können Äpfel essen" turning into "Äpfel können wir essen." The only requirement is that you have your been in the second position of the sentence.
I agree with you (and upvoted!) but I think it does depend on what you mean by "wrong." Gramatically, no it isn't correct, but if I was looking for something and someone held it up I might say that. "THAT! I need!" And it wouldn't really be "correct" but in that I naturally might use it and it would be understandable, it is correct.
I have heard it like this: Dad: "Go ahead and put away the tools for me." Kid: "Should I put away the hammer as well?" Dad: "No, that I need. Leave it here. Put away everything else." (Guess who's the kid? :p) If writing a story or something, "that" would probably be in italics, I think.
Downvote me and support wrong English grammar. The bad part is this is very basic English grammar that you are wrong about. I need that. Did you see that? Comes at the end of a sentence or maybe to connect to sentences. This is not advanced English at all. You can not use "That I need" because it is a partial sentence. "That is not something I would do." if you are learning correct grammar. No wonder why the Chinese don't just hire anyone.
English is committed to subject verb object order in sentence construction. Changing the order is usually done just for stylistic effects. Other subject verb object (S.V.O.) languages are less rigid and more tolerant of changed order. German is one of them. Esperanto much more so.
What annoys me is that I've answered that question multiple times below, yet you rather complain instead of reading the whole thread...
Yes, a different word order is frequently used to emphasize a different part of the sentence. There are other factors, like spoken stress, but in writing, putting the word in first position is a good indicator of emphasis.
...For a comments section this large, you can't expect me to read multiple threads, on the off-chance someone else asked the same question .........
Actually, I can and do. Especially since the very first post on this page deals with the issue. You didn't just naively ask a question already posted and answered. You said that you were annoyed that it hadn't been answered on this page.
The reason there are so many posts on this page is that people like yourself keep asking the same question over and over even though it has already been answered many times. The result is that new questions about new issues with new answers provided, get buried underneath dozens and dozens of repeats.
I can't expect you to read the information you want, but you expect others to provide it for you again for your convenience? Northernguy is right, that's exactly the reason these threads are so spammed. If you can't be bothered to change your ways, be sure I will: I won't answer already answered questions from you in the future.
The passive sentence is, 'that is needed'.
In a passive sentence the direct object becomes the subject, and the verb is now conjugated according to the original direct object. It becomes much clearer if the direct object is plural:
I require those (potatoes).
Those (potatoes) are required.
Fast det beror helt på vad man vill understryka i meningen. Det viktigaste sätter man i fundamentet. "Jag behöver det" och "Det behöver jag" är båda rätt, men den första används oftare för man ofta sätter subjektet i fundamentet. Men när man säger "Det behöver jag" så vill man understryka att det är just DET (den saken) man behöver, därför sätts "det" som fundament. Det är bara det att man oftast är mer van vid att sätta subjektet först.
Sedan så är meningarna ganska så flexibla i svenskan. Man kan ändra ganska mycket på dem olika delarna (subjekt, objekt, adverb etc), med ett enda villkor: predikatet måste komma direkt efter fundamentet, för det är V2 ordföljd i svenskan.
That explanation by eineSchlange is about Swedish grammar, and I'm not sure if what they said also applies for German. But in case you still want to know:
It depends entirely on what you want to emphasize in the sentence. You put the most important part in the fundament. "Jag behöver det" and "Det behöver jag" are both correct, but the first one is more often used because the subject is often put in the fundament. When you say "Det behöver jag", you want to emphasize that det is precisely the thing that you need, hence you put det in the fundament. It's just that people are used to putting the subject first in a sentence.
Sentences are quite flexible in Swedish. You can change a lot of the different parts (subject, object, adverb, etc.) with a single exception: the predicate must come directly after the fundament because of the V2 word order.
Ich glaube, du würdest sagen „Das braucht mich.“ You conjugate "brauchen" for the subject "das" (that) instead of "ich" (I) and replace "ich" (I) with "mich" (Me, accusative). Of course, you could flip it again and make „Mich braucht das“ to match with this original sentence's order.
One of the suggested definitions I got from hovering over "brauche" was "use/am using". When I translated the German sentence to English as "I am using that" I was marked incorrect.
I've reported this as an error but I'm curious whether the problem is an accurate statement not being accepted or a bad suggested definition. Can anyone shed light on this? Is there a better way to say "I need that" vs. "I am using that"?
"Dass" is a conjunction (more exactly, a relative clause). "Das" is either neutral article or pronoun. Pronouns and conjunction get easily mixed up (btw also by native speakers). Maybe this helps: https://deutsch.lingolia.com/en/vocabulary/easily-confused-words/das-vs-dass
I think you mean "Dass" is a conjunction (more precisely, a subordinating conjunction).
It's not a relative clause and it doesn't start a relative clause -- but das with one S can start a relative clause! (Example: In dem Haus, das meine Mutter mir gekauft hat, wohnen jetzt meine Kinder. The relative clause is das meine Mutter mir gekauft hat.)
No, neither "es brauche ist" or "ist brauche es" mean "I need it". In fact, those sentences in themselves don't make much sense; they translate as "it needs is" and "is needs it". To say "I need it" in German, one would say "Ich brauche es" OR "Es brauche ich" (if you would like and emphasis on IT.)
Yes, the analogy doesn't really work because in German only the order is inverted, not the grammatical structure. You can sometimes get away with fronting the object for emphasis in English, given sufficient context and intonation. For example, in this beer advert:
Draughts I hate. Except McEwans Export -- now that I like!
(In case anyone requires an explanation for the "except": it's a pun on draughts [UK] = checkers [USA] = Damespiel, versus draught [UK] = draft [USA] = "vom Fass".)
Is "ich brauche das" acceptable? Is this just another way of saying the same thing?
Not exactly the same thing.
The underlying fact is the same, but the emphasis is different.
Ich brauche das (subject–verb–object) is the basic or unmarked word order, which doesn't emphasise anything in particular.
Das brauche ich is not the basic word order, so you would use it when you want to focus or emphasise something, e.g. "As for that: it's me who needs it" (Das brauche ich) or "That's the one I need" (Das brauche ich).