Tag Archives: stehen

Please be upstanding and raise your glasses to language

I can’t stand him.

Ich stehe auf ihn.

These two idioms using the word “stand” or stehen communicate very different feelings about another person. In the English case, if you can “stand” someone, then you can bear to be with her/him, although you probably aren’t particularly keen on this person. If you “can’t stand” someone, you really don’t like her/him and/or cannot bear to be with him/her. In the case of the German colloquial expression auf jemanden stehen, you are “keen on” someone or you “have a crush on” him/her, “a thing for” her/him, you are “into” him/her or you “fancy” her/him. In addition to sharing your likes or dislikes of other people, both expressions can also be used to describe feelings about the things you don’t much like (English) or like very much (German).

Both stehen and “stand” seem to be pretty productive. In German this productivity is found in the compound words made from stehen or its relatives. Standhalten — stand is a relative of stehen —  means that you can “bear up under the pressure” (den Druck standhalten), “hold your own” (wacker standhalten) or that your ideas can ”withstand” scrutiny (einer genauen Untersuchung standhalten). Stehen also appears in the prefixed verbs ausstehendurchstehen and überstehen, all of which have to do with “bearing, enduring, withstanding, weathering or surviving” something.

In the case of English, the productivity flows from collocations between “stand” and prepositions and the idiomatic uses of the verb. Thus, you are not likely to “stand up for” someone (einstehenentreten, verteidigen) you can’t stand, nor would you be willing to “stand” this person a drink (spendieren), you probably don’t like what they “stand for” (für etwas stehen) and there is quite possibly something that “stands between you” (≈dazwischenstehen), making it difficult for you to get along. And I must confess (gestehen) that I giggled at the possible confusion that might ensue from the sample usage given in the Cambridge dictionary’s definition of the idiom “to stand on ceremony” (to behave in a formal way) because the literal and figurative meanings of “stand” both appear to be relevant  — “Please sit down and make yourself comfortable, we don’t stand on ceremony here.” I guess they don’t want to leave their learners “upstanding.”

Tagged , , , ,

Week 8 Anniversary or You Can Have It Both Ways

This example from pons.eu allows me to connect to the earthquake theme and to discuss a concept that can make the German learner feel as though the very foundations of her or his knowledge base are shaking. The example is

nach dem Erdbeben waren nur ein paar Häuser stehen geblieben – “after the earthquake, only a few houses were left standing”

and it uses one of the verbs, stehen (well actually a verb with stehen as its base, stehen bleiben) from a family with some interesting features. Here are eight (or seven depending on how you want to count) of its members.

stehenstellen – “to stand, to be situated” – “to put (in a standing position)”
liegenlegen – “to lie, be situated” – “to put (in a lying position)”
hängen – hängen – ” to be hanging” – “to hang something/someone”
sitzen – (sich) setzen – “to be sitting” – “to sit down”

The first verb in each pair is a “strong” verb, which means that the stem changes with the tense (and in some cases, although not for the four here, it changes with the person and number). The second verb in each pair is a “weak” or regular verb (there are also mixed verbs, perhaps I’ll cover them at some point.) that can be conjugated without a stem change.

The first verb in each pair is also one that is used to describe where something is located. The second describes movement of something somewhere. I’ve seen this described many times as the first set answering the questions Wo? and the second the question Wohin? but my sense is that this would only make sense to someone who already knows German as the distinction between Wo? and Wohin? feels more subtle than the distinction between something being in a place or being moved to a place. Thus I find it more helpful to call the second set the Exercise or E-words. In two of three that have different forms (hängen is conjugated two ways in the past tense but the infinite is the same), the movement-describing (or exercise-describing!) words have “e” as their initial vowel. I also find this helpful because the verbs in the second group require an agent that can “exercise” its right to move things. The remaining pair, stehenstellen feels the simplest to me as an English speaker since “staying” contraindicates movement (or exercise).

If one knows a bit of grammar, one can also differentiate between the first and second members of each pair in terms of transitivity. The first member of each pair is intransitive and the second member is transitive. The best English example that I know comes from “The Language Instinct” by Steven Pinker (A WONDERFUL BOOK, the year it came out in paperback I gave it to almost everyone close to me for Christmas):

“Melvin dined” – “dined” is an intransitive verb, it cannot take an object
“Melvin ate the pizza” – “ate” is a transitive verb, it can take an object or it can stand along “Melvin ate”
“*Melvin dined the pizza” is therefore ill-formed (although you native speakers did not need me to tell you this!)

The final layer of complexity is that these verbs take the so-called “two-way prepositions” whose objects can be in the dative case – the first member of the pair – or in the accusative case – the second member of each pair. One often hears the dative compared to the indirect objective in English and the accusative to the direct object but as you will see below, these word pairs made me rethink the value of this analogy!

Okay, let’s look at some examples, courtesy of a page at the University of Michigan:

stehen, stand, gestanden – stellen, stellte, gestellt
(infinitive, 3rd pers. sing. preterite (simple past), past participle)

First look at the stem change: steh becomes stand when you conjugate stehen in the past tense. Then look at how stell keeps its form. Next look at the table below and notice the meaning difference between the two columns, the location verb is on the left (cyan/turquoise) and the movement or exercise verb is on the right (green).

Eine Mumie stand mitten in ihrem Wohnzimmer (dative: location). Sie stellte die Mumie (accusative: direct object) in die Ecke (accusative: motion).
A mummy stood in the middle of her living room. She put (stood) the mummy in the corner.

These examples also show the different cases that are triggered by the preposition in for the two members of the pair. You use in+dative for the location verb stehen and this is where the indirect object comparison breaks down. No one is receiving a living room as they would be if this were a traditional indirect object, as in for example, “She received a mummy from the British Museum.” You use in+accusative for the exercise verb stellen . Using the accusative for the object being moved fits the direct object (or patient role, to use the linguistic term) but one also uses the accusative for the place to which it is being moved, which is where the analogy with the direct object breaks down unless you want to say that the corner changes from a state of being empty to one of being full.

So, I hear you saying, while stehenstellen seems rather complex, at least you have the clue of two different verb stems. But what about the two forms of hängen? Let’s take a look!

hängen, hing, gehangen – hängen, hängte, gehängt
(infinitive, 3rd pers. sing. preterite (simple past), past participle)

This makes it look pretty easy, one must simply remember that for the location version of this verb, you make a stem change when you conjugate it in the past tense and for the exercise version, you don’t.

Der Kronleuchter hat im Keller (dative: location) gehangen. Wir haben den Kronleuchter (accusative: direct object) ins Wohnzimmer (accusative: motion) gehängt.
The chandelier was hanging in the basement. We hung the chandelier in the living room.

However, creating an example in the past tense conveniently hides the fact that in the present tense BOTH versions are conjugated in exactly the same way, for example in the 3rd pers, sing. both would be er/sie/es hängt. Thus you need to look at the other clues such as the case taken by any prepositional objects and how the verb fares on the “dined” test to make sure you have understood which meaning/verb is intended. Are those chandeliers swaying pretty violently or what?!

One last tidbit that I loved from this page was this explanation of the use of sitzen and sich setzen: “unlike the English “to set,” [sitzen and sich setzen] can only be used with things that have knees and can thus actually sit: people, dolls and puppets, and certain animals, but not, for example, worms, fish, or inanimate objects other than dolls and puppets.” [bold in original] I haven’t found any other sites that confirm this and thus I’d love to hear from native speakers: does this rule fit with your intuitive grasp of Deutsch/German? Meanwhile, I’ll be pondering which leg joints in the animal kingdom might safely be counted as knees!

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
a free state of mind

Thoughts from the Journey...

The Diversity Dividend

Doing Diversity Differently


Smart language learning

Leading with Trust

Trust is the essential ingredient for leadership success.

Akademie für geile Texte

Literaturnobelp-Reis, Basmati, 3min

Idol Musings

Ray's ruminations, rants and reflections on his American Idol addiction


Taking a Fresh Look at the English Language

Marathon Sprachen

Unravelling the complexities of German in English

The Elementalist Epoch

Stories and Poems from the mind of Tristan Nagler

Reality Swipe

Welcome to the Reality Swipe experience... Brace yourself