"Ich stellte die Tasse in unser Zimmer."
Translation:I put the cup in our room.
14 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
And I would say, "put...into our room" now that I'm getting hyper-tuned into the accusative... dative difference....
713
But you wouldn't say that in English. Into is used for when there is motion from place to place. So, you could say I threw the cup from this room into that room. But in this instance you have to view it as two separate actions, the one of walking into the room and the action of setting the cup down in that room. So in a sentence, "I walked from the kitchen into the bedroom and placed the cup in there." Just because in the German sentence the "in" is acting as an accusative preposition, does not always mean that it translates as "into" in the English.
"in" should imply dative case right? Then would it not be the case to use "unserem" instead of "unser"?
- 1006
Nein. In is both dativ and akkusativ. Here, it is akkusativ. I disagree with Jmberb's explanation: I absolutely would "I put the cup into our room." to express the act of taking a cup and leaving it in our room. (Which I think could be expressed as ich verließ die Tasse in unserem Zimmer.)
- 1006
Zimmer is neuter. The third-person possessive pronoun, declined for a singular, neuter noun is unser. Unseres is for Genitiv masculine or neuter.
See this table.
Then please help me understand the linguistic rationale here!
Because I see "die Tasse" as the direct object of "stellte" (-> akkusativ)
Is then "in unser Zimmer" a second direct (akkusativ) object? I was viewing it as an indirect (dativ) object..
- 1006
You are correct about die Tasse being the direct object of stellte: it is the thing being acted upon, so akkusativ.
But das Zimmmer is neither an indirect object nor a direct object of the verb stellte: it is the object of the preposition in and the case is determined by whether something is being moved to the location (akkusativ) or within the location (dativ). There's a nice explanation here: http://german.about.com/library/weekly/aa052101a.htm .
Some explanations of indirect objects are here:
- http://www.myenglishpages.com/site_php_files/grammar-lesson-direct-indirect-object.php
- http://homepages.uwp.edu/canary/grammar_text/37-vb-ditr.html
- http://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/indirect_object.htm
I can see where das Zimmer has the appearance of being the recipient of the object (die Tasse) and thus being the indirect object of stellte, but I'm not qualified to explain why it isn't. Perhaps it is, but the two-way rules regarding in supersede. We need an expert to answer that question.
I really don't see any difference between "I put it there" and "I kept it there", especially when it comes to cups.
To "put" something is active - picking it up, carrying it over there, setting it down again.
To "keep" something is usually more passive - it was there already, and I did nothing to change that.
So, they are different actions with different verbs.
Apparently, in India, we use it differently almost all the time.
- Put: Pick it up, set it down, rather nonchalantly (you can't put the mobile on the table, it might break)
- Keep: Pick it up, set it down, rather carefully (you can keep the mobile on the table)
- Place: Pick it up, set it down, carefully (you usually place the mobile on the table)
Example:
- Put the wrapper in the dustbin. Put the pillow on the bed. Can be done carelessly
- Keep the remote next to the TV. Keep the phone if he isn't picking up. Needs care
- Place the plates on the table. Place the dish on the stove. Must be very careful
Therefore, the German word behalten isn't keep in Indian English, it's a reflexive verb keep with oneself.
Example:
"Shall I keep the bag in the car?" "No, keep it with yourself."
To note: Keep is also used instead of place colloquially.
Written here in more detail: https://www.duolingo.com/comment/13788425
Repeating a comment to which there is no response: "Why is 'placed' not accepted?"