Why does this relative pronoun not take the case of the noun it is referring to?












8















The University of Michigan gives this sentence on their page about relative pronouns:




Jeden Morgen tritt Jack Nicholson meinen kleinen Hund, der mich immer wütend macht."




The page said the der referred back to meinem kleinen Hund but since Jack Nicholson is in the nominative position of this sentence (meinen kleinen Hund is in the accusative), why wouldn’t der refer back to Jack Nicholson?










share|improve this question




















  • 1





    Semantisch ist das sehr merkwürdig. Wenn Dich der Hund wütend macht - wieso trittst Du ihn nicht selbst? Wieso hast Du überhaupt einen Hund, wenn er Dich wütend macht? Zum Glück hast Du die Quelle verlinkt, sonst hätte ich gedacht, dass es ein Übertragungsfehler ist oder ein miserables Lehrbuch (hatten wir auch schon).

    – user unknown
    yesterday











  • I second the first comment that the sentence does not sound very good/natural to me: I think the University of Michigan is trying to make their point with a sentence that is highly artificial. The first version they describe would be very natural indeed to express your annoyance about Jack Nicholson kicking your dog, whereas the second version just seems a weird construct from a logical point of view. Even though it is grammatical correct.

    – user2705196
    11 hours ago













  • Bad premise. Relative pronouns don't conform to the case of their antecedent. Their case conforms to their function in the relative clause.

    – Kilian Foth
    5 mins ago
















8















The University of Michigan gives this sentence on their page about relative pronouns:




Jeden Morgen tritt Jack Nicholson meinen kleinen Hund, der mich immer wütend macht."




The page said the der referred back to meinem kleinen Hund but since Jack Nicholson is in the nominative position of this sentence (meinen kleinen Hund is in the accusative), why wouldn’t der refer back to Jack Nicholson?










share|improve this question




















  • 1





    Semantisch ist das sehr merkwürdig. Wenn Dich der Hund wütend macht - wieso trittst Du ihn nicht selbst? Wieso hast Du überhaupt einen Hund, wenn er Dich wütend macht? Zum Glück hast Du die Quelle verlinkt, sonst hätte ich gedacht, dass es ein Übertragungsfehler ist oder ein miserables Lehrbuch (hatten wir auch schon).

    – user unknown
    yesterday











  • I second the first comment that the sentence does not sound very good/natural to me: I think the University of Michigan is trying to make their point with a sentence that is highly artificial. The first version they describe would be very natural indeed to express your annoyance about Jack Nicholson kicking your dog, whereas the second version just seems a weird construct from a logical point of view. Even though it is grammatical correct.

    – user2705196
    11 hours ago













  • Bad premise. Relative pronouns don't conform to the case of their antecedent. Their case conforms to their function in the relative clause.

    – Kilian Foth
    5 mins ago














8












8








8








The University of Michigan gives this sentence on their page about relative pronouns:




Jeden Morgen tritt Jack Nicholson meinen kleinen Hund, der mich immer wütend macht."




The page said the der referred back to meinem kleinen Hund but since Jack Nicholson is in the nominative position of this sentence (meinen kleinen Hund is in the accusative), why wouldn’t der refer back to Jack Nicholson?










share|improve this question
















The University of Michigan gives this sentence on their page about relative pronouns:




Jeden Morgen tritt Jack Nicholson meinen kleinen Hund, der mich immer wütend macht."




The page said the der referred back to meinem kleinen Hund but since Jack Nicholson is in the nominative position of this sentence (meinen kleinen Hund is in the accusative), why wouldn’t der refer back to Jack Nicholson?







grammatical-case relative-pronouns






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 20 hours ago









Wrzlprmft

18.3k448112




18.3k448112










asked yesterday









AaronAaron

60217




60217








  • 1





    Semantisch ist das sehr merkwürdig. Wenn Dich der Hund wütend macht - wieso trittst Du ihn nicht selbst? Wieso hast Du überhaupt einen Hund, wenn er Dich wütend macht? Zum Glück hast Du die Quelle verlinkt, sonst hätte ich gedacht, dass es ein Übertragungsfehler ist oder ein miserables Lehrbuch (hatten wir auch schon).

    – user unknown
    yesterday











  • I second the first comment that the sentence does not sound very good/natural to me: I think the University of Michigan is trying to make their point with a sentence that is highly artificial. The first version they describe would be very natural indeed to express your annoyance about Jack Nicholson kicking your dog, whereas the second version just seems a weird construct from a logical point of view. Even though it is grammatical correct.

    – user2705196
    11 hours ago













  • Bad premise. Relative pronouns don't conform to the case of their antecedent. Their case conforms to their function in the relative clause.

    – Kilian Foth
    5 mins ago














  • 1





    Semantisch ist das sehr merkwürdig. Wenn Dich der Hund wütend macht - wieso trittst Du ihn nicht selbst? Wieso hast Du überhaupt einen Hund, wenn er Dich wütend macht? Zum Glück hast Du die Quelle verlinkt, sonst hätte ich gedacht, dass es ein Übertragungsfehler ist oder ein miserables Lehrbuch (hatten wir auch schon).

    – user unknown
    yesterday











  • I second the first comment that the sentence does not sound very good/natural to me: I think the University of Michigan is trying to make their point with a sentence that is highly artificial. The first version they describe would be very natural indeed to express your annoyance about Jack Nicholson kicking your dog, whereas the second version just seems a weird construct from a logical point of view. Even though it is grammatical correct.

    – user2705196
    11 hours ago













  • Bad premise. Relative pronouns don't conform to the case of their antecedent. Their case conforms to their function in the relative clause.

    – Kilian Foth
    5 mins ago








1




1





Semantisch ist das sehr merkwürdig. Wenn Dich der Hund wütend macht - wieso trittst Du ihn nicht selbst? Wieso hast Du überhaupt einen Hund, wenn er Dich wütend macht? Zum Glück hast Du die Quelle verlinkt, sonst hätte ich gedacht, dass es ein Übertragungsfehler ist oder ein miserables Lehrbuch (hatten wir auch schon).

– user unknown
yesterday





Semantisch ist das sehr merkwürdig. Wenn Dich der Hund wütend macht - wieso trittst Du ihn nicht selbst? Wieso hast Du überhaupt einen Hund, wenn er Dich wütend macht? Zum Glück hast Du die Quelle verlinkt, sonst hätte ich gedacht, dass es ein Übertragungsfehler ist oder ein miserables Lehrbuch (hatten wir auch schon).

– user unknown
yesterday













I second the first comment that the sentence does not sound very good/natural to me: I think the University of Michigan is trying to make their point with a sentence that is highly artificial. The first version they describe would be very natural indeed to express your annoyance about Jack Nicholson kicking your dog, whereas the second version just seems a weird construct from a logical point of view. Even though it is grammatical correct.

– user2705196
11 hours ago







I second the first comment that the sentence does not sound very good/natural to me: I think the University of Michigan is trying to make their point with a sentence that is highly artificial. The first version they describe would be very natural indeed to express your annoyance about Jack Nicholson kicking your dog, whereas the second version just seems a weird construct from a logical point of view. Even though it is grammatical correct.

– user2705196
11 hours ago















Bad premise. Relative pronouns don't conform to the case of their antecedent. Their case conforms to their function in the relative clause.

– Kilian Foth
5 mins ago





Bad premise. Relative pronouns don't conform to the case of their antecedent. Their case conforms to their function in the relative clause.

– Kilian Foth
5 mins ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















19















Jeden Morgen tritt Jack Nicholson meinen kleinen Hund, der mich immer wütend macht.




A relative pronoun must match the gender of its antecedent. In the given sentence, der is masculine and there are therefore two possible antecedents in the matrix clause: the subject Jack Nicholson and the object meinen kleinen Hund. However, the relative clause can only be interpreted as referring to the latter.



Note that this is the case despite the fact that the relative clause has intentionally been phrased in such a way that it is semantically more plausible for Jack Nicholson to be the antecedent (dog-kicking tends to make people angry at the person doing the kicking). This makes the fact that the relative clause cannot have Jack Nicholson as its antecedent all the more salient.



Also note that if we replace masculine Hund by feminine Katze, the only possible antecedent of the relative clause is Jack Nicholson, and yet the relative clause still cannot be interpreted as referring to him. The following sentence is ungrammatical:




*Jeden Morgen tritt Jack Nicholson meine kleine Katze, der mich immer wütend macht.




We can conclude that it is not enough for a relative pronoun to match the gender of its antecedent. The relative clause it introduces must also be positioned correctly. To quote a rule from the same page:




The relative clause always comes right after the noun it is describing.




(But note the exception for "dangling verbs".) Since the relative clause in the original example follows the object, it can only modify the object, i.e. meinen kleinen Hund.



Finally, as far as case is concerned, note that the case of the relative pronoun is completely independent of the case of its antecedent. They occur in different sentences, after all! Let's look at some examples from the section How to choose the correct relative pronoun on this page with supplementary information.




Das ist der Laden [Nom.], den (Acc.) ich liebe.

Wir gehen in den Laden [Acc.], den (Acc.) ich liebe.

Wir sind in dem Laden [Dat.], den (Acc.) ich liebe.

Wer ist der Besitzer des Ladens [Gen.], den (Acc.) ich liebe?



Das ist der Laden [Nom.], dem (Dat.) ich €20.000 schulde.

Wir gehen in den Laden [Acc.], dem (Dat.) ich €20.000 schulde.

Wir sind in dem Laden [Dat.], dem (Dat.) ich €20.000 schulde.

Wer ist der Besitzer des Ladens [Gen.], dem (Dat.) ich €20.000 schulde?




Observe how the case of the relative pronoun is determined by the verb in the subordinate clause (lieben + accusative in the first four examples, schulden + dative in the others), whereas the case of the antecedent is determined within the matrix clause.






share|improve this answer

































    1














    It's very much the same in English, "John loves Isi, who I just barely like". The grammatical case does not prohibit the construction, as @David said.



    However, it might be more pleasing to continue in the same case, "... meinen Hund, den ...", leaving it in an object position. Although there's no overt preference, it stands to reason. Unless the relative clause restricts or explains the main clause (I mean what the hell, Jack, what was that for, and why would anyone permit that to happen repeatedly), it would be more natural to start a new sentence. Whereas, if restricting the main clause, the dog may well remain in object position, as the dog is not a subject that could be actively responsible for those actions. Phrasing the given relative clause with the dog as an accusative object would be rather difficult though (the passive transposition would use dativ "von dem"). Therefore it's not done and the resulting argument is subjective, not objective, and thus not conclusive. We would naturally have to ask, "what, wait a second, you don't even like the dog and let it be kicked?". Better would be thus, "... meinen Hund, den ich sowieso nicht mag, denn der ärgert mich immer". That's a matter of style more than grammar, and in many cases it is fine either way. But it's a good question.






    share|improve this answer
























    • Of course, careful written English will often still use "whom I just barely like", but this is really foreign to many native English speakers while the use of the correct case for the relative pronoun comes naturally to native German speakers.

      – Carsten S
      20 hours ago



















    1














    BEcause the dog is the subject in the relative sentence.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Gismo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.










    We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.















    • This answer makes some sense, but only after the edit to the title that was not done by the OP.

      – Carsten S
      19 hours ago












    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "253"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fgerman.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f50543%2fwhy-does-this-relative-pronoun-not-take-the-case-of-the-noun-it-is-referring-to%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    19















    Jeden Morgen tritt Jack Nicholson meinen kleinen Hund, der mich immer wütend macht.




    A relative pronoun must match the gender of its antecedent. In the given sentence, der is masculine and there are therefore two possible antecedents in the matrix clause: the subject Jack Nicholson and the object meinen kleinen Hund. However, the relative clause can only be interpreted as referring to the latter.



    Note that this is the case despite the fact that the relative clause has intentionally been phrased in such a way that it is semantically more plausible for Jack Nicholson to be the antecedent (dog-kicking tends to make people angry at the person doing the kicking). This makes the fact that the relative clause cannot have Jack Nicholson as its antecedent all the more salient.



    Also note that if we replace masculine Hund by feminine Katze, the only possible antecedent of the relative clause is Jack Nicholson, and yet the relative clause still cannot be interpreted as referring to him. The following sentence is ungrammatical:




    *Jeden Morgen tritt Jack Nicholson meine kleine Katze, der mich immer wütend macht.




    We can conclude that it is not enough for a relative pronoun to match the gender of its antecedent. The relative clause it introduces must also be positioned correctly. To quote a rule from the same page:




    The relative clause always comes right after the noun it is describing.




    (But note the exception for "dangling verbs".) Since the relative clause in the original example follows the object, it can only modify the object, i.e. meinen kleinen Hund.



    Finally, as far as case is concerned, note that the case of the relative pronoun is completely independent of the case of its antecedent. They occur in different sentences, after all! Let's look at some examples from the section How to choose the correct relative pronoun on this page with supplementary information.




    Das ist der Laden [Nom.], den (Acc.) ich liebe.

    Wir gehen in den Laden [Acc.], den (Acc.) ich liebe.

    Wir sind in dem Laden [Dat.], den (Acc.) ich liebe.

    Wer ist der Besitzer des Ladens [Gen.], den (Acc.) ich liebe?



    Das ist der Laden [Nom.], dem (Dat.) ich €20.000 schulde.

    Wir gehen in den Laden [Acc.], dem (Dat.) ich €20.000 schulde.

    Wir sind in dem Laden [Dat.], dem (Dat.) ich €20.000 schulde.

    Wer ist der Besitzer des Ladens [Gen.], dem (Dat.) ich €20.000 schulde?




    Observe how the case of the relative pronoun is determined by the verb in the subordinate clause (lieben + accusative in the first four examples, schulden + dative in the others), whereas the case of the antecedent is determined within the matrix clause.






    share|improve this answer






























      19















      Jeden Morgen tritt Jack Nicholson meinen kleinen Hund, der mich immer wütend macht.




      A relative pronoun must match the gender of its antecedent. In the given sentence, der is masculine and there are therefore two possible antecedents in the matrix clause: the subject Jack Nicholson and the object meinen kleinen Hund. However, the relative clause can only be interpreted as referring to the latter.



      Note that this is the case despite the fact that the relative clause has intentionally been phrased in such a way that it is semantically more plausible for Jack Nicholson to be the antecedent (dog-kicking tends to make people angry at the person doing the kicking). This makes the fact that the relative clause cannot have Jack Nicholson as its antecedent all the more salient.



      Also note that if we replace masculine Hund by feminine Katze, the only possible antecedent of the relative clause is Jack Nicholson, and yet the relative clause still cannot be interpreted as referring to him. The following sentence is ungrammatical:




      *Jeden Morgen tritt Jack Nicholson meine kleine Katze, der mich immer wütend macht.




      We can conclude that it is not enough for a relative pronoun to match the gender of its antecedent. The relative clause it introduces must also be positioned correctly. To quote a rule from the same page:




      The relative clause always comes right after the noun it is describing.




      (But note the exception for "dangling verbs".) Since the relative clause in the original example follows the object, it can only modify the object, i.e. meinen kleinen Hund.



      Finally, as far as case is concerned, note that the case of the relative pronoun is completely independent of the case of its antecedent. They occur in different sentences, after all! Let's look at some examples from the section How to choose the correct relative pronoun on this page with supplementary information.




      Das ist der Laden [Nom.], den (Acc.) ich liebe.

      Wir gehen in den Laden [Acc.], den (Acc.) ich liebe.

      Wir sind in dem Laden [Dat.], den (Acc.) ich liebe.

      Wer ist der Besitzer des Ladens [Gen.], den (Acc.) ich liebe?



      Das ist der Laden [Nom.], dem (Dat.) ich €20.000 schulde.

      Wir gehen in den Laden [Acc.], dem (Dat.) ich €20.000 schulde.

      Wir sind in dem Laden [Dat.], dem (Dat.) ich €20.000 schulde.

      Wer ist der Besitzer des Ladens [Gen.], dem (Dat.) ich €20.000 schulde?




      Observe how the case of the relative pronoun is determined by the verb in the subordinate clause (lieben + accusative in the first four examples, schulden + dative in the others), whereas the case of the antecedent is determined within the matrix clause.






      share|improve this answer




























        19












        19








        19








        Jeden Morgen tritt Jack Nicholson meinen kleinen Hund, der mich immer wütend macht.




        A relative pronoun must match the gender of its antecedent. In the given sentence, der is masculine and there are therefore two possible antecedents in the matrix clause: the subject Jack Nicholson and the object meinen kleinen Hund. However, the relative clause can only be interpreted as referring to the latter.



        Note that this is the case despite the fact that the relative clause has intentionally been phrased in such a way that it is semantically more plausible for Jack Nicholson to be the antecedent (dog-kicking tends to make people angry at the person doing the kicking). This makes the fact that the relative clause cannot have Jack Nicholson as its antecedent all the more salient.



        Also note that if we replace masculine Hund by feminine Katze, the only possible antecedent of the relative clause is Jack Nicholson, and yet the relative clause still cannot be interpreted as referring to him. The following sentence is ungrammatical:




        *Jeden Morgen tritt Jack Nicholson meine kleine Katze, der mich immer wütend macht.




        We can conclude that it is not enough for a relative pronoun to match the gender of its antecedent. The relative clause it introduces must also be positioned correctly. To quote a rule from the same page:




        The relative clause always comes right after the noun it is describing.




        (But note the exception for "dangling verbs".) Since the relative clause in the original example follows the object, it can only modify the object, i.e. meinen kleinen Hund.



        Finally, as far as case is concerned, note that the case of the relative pronoun is completely independent of the case of its antecedent. They occur in different sentences, after all! Let's look at some examples from the section How to choose the correct relative pronoun on this page with supplementary information.




        Das ist der Laden [Nom.], den (Acc.) ich liebe.

        Wir gehen in den Laden [Acc.], den (Acc.) ich liebe.

        Wir sind in dem Laden [Dat.], den (Acc.) ich liebe.

        Wer ist der Besitzer des Ladens [Gen.], den (Acc.) ich liebe?



        Das ist der Laden [Nom.], dem (Dat.) ich €20.000 schulde.

        Wir gehen in den Laden [Acc.], dem (Dat.) ich €20.000 schulde.

        Wir sind in dem Laden [Dat.], dem (Dat.) ich €20.000 schulde.

        Wer ist der Besitzer des Ladens [Gen.], dem (Dat.) ich €20.000 schulde?




        Observe how the case of the relative pronoun is determined by the verb in the subordinate clause (lieben + accusative in the first four examples, schulden + dative in the others), whereas the case of the antecedent is determined within the matrix clause.






        share|improve this answer
















        Jeden Morgen tritt Jack Nicholson meinen kleinen Hund, der mich immer wütend macht.




        A relative pronoun must match the gender of its antecedent. In the given sentence, der is masculine and there are therefore two possible antecedents in the matrix clause: the subject Jack Nicholson and the object meinen kleinen Hund. However, the relative clause can only be interpreted as referring to the latter.



        Note that this is the case despite the fact that the relative clause has intentionally been phrased in such a way that it is semantically more plausible for Jack Nicholson to be the antecedent (dog-kicking tends to make people angry at the person doing the kicking). This makes the fact that the relative clause cannot have Jack Nicholson as its antecedent all the more salient.



        Also note that if we replace masculine Hund by feminine Katze, the only possible antecedent of the relative clause is Jack Nicholson, and yet the relative clause still cannot be interpreted as referring to him. The following sentence is ungrammatical:




        *Jeden Morgen tritt Jack Nicholson meine kleine Katze, der mich immer wütend macht.




        We can conclude that it is not enough for a relative pronoun to match the gender of its antecedent. The relative clause it introduces must also be positioned correctly. To quote a rule from the same page:




        The relative clause always comes right after the noun it is describing.




        (But note the exception for "dangling verbs".) Since the relative clause in the original example follows the object, it can only modify the object, i.e. meinen kleinen Hund.



        Finally, as far as case is concerned, note that the case of the relative pronoun is completely independent of the case of its antecedent. They occur in different sentences, after all! Let's look at some examples from the section How to choose the correct relative pronoun on this page with supplementary information.




        Das ist der Laden [Nom.], den (Acc.) ich liebe.

        Wir gehen in den Laden [Acc.], den (Acc.) ich liebe.

        Wir sind in dem Laden [Dat.], den (Acc.) ich liebe.

        Wer ist der Besitzer des Ladens [Gen.], den (Acc.) ich liebe?



        Das ist der Laden [Nom.], dem (Dat.) ich €20.000 schulde.

        Wir gehen in den Laden [Acc.], dem (Dat.) ich €20.000 schulde.

        Wir sind in dem Laden [Dat.], dem (Dat.) ich €20.000 schulde.

        Wer ist der Besitzer des Ladens [Gen.], dem (Dat.) ich €20.000 schulde?




        Observe how the case of the relative pronoun is determined by the verb in the subordinate clause (lieben + accusative in the first four examples, schulden + dative in the others), whereas the case of the antecedent is determined within the matrix clause.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 17 hours ago

























        answered yesterday









        David VogtDavid Vogt

        4,8931331




        4,8931331























            1














            It's very much the same in English, "John loves Isi, who I just barely like". The grammatical case does not prohibit the construction, as @David said.



            However, it might be more pleasing to continue in the same case, "... meinen Hund, den ...", leaving it in an object position. Although there's no overt preference, it stands to reason. Unless the relative clause restricts or explains the main clause (I mean what the hell, Jack, what was that for, and why would anyone permit that to happen repeatedly), it would be more natural to start a new sentence. Whereas, if restricting the main clause, the dog may well remain in object position, as the dog is not a subject that could be actively responsible for those actions. Phrasing the given relative clause with the dog as an accusative object would be rather difficult though (the passive transposition would use dativ "von dem"). Therefore it's not done and the resulting argument is subjective, not objective, and thus not conclusive. We would naturally have to ask, "what, wait a second, you don't even like the dog and let it be kicked?". Better would be thus, "... meinen Hund, den ich sowieso nicht mag, denn der ärgert mich immer". That's a matter of style more than grammar, and in many cases it is fine either way. But it's a good question.






            share|improve this answer
























            • Of course, careful written English will often still use "whom I just barely like", but this is really foreign to many native English speakers while the use of the correct case for the relative pronoun comes naturally to native German speakers.

              – Carsten S
              20 hours ago
















            1














            It's very much the same in English, "John loves Isi, who I just barely like". The grammatical case does not prohibit the construction, as @David said.



            However, it might be more pleasing to continue in the same case, "... meinen Hund, den ...", leaving it in an object position. Although there's no overt preference, it stands to reason. Unless the relative clause restricts or explains the main clause (I mean what the hell, Jack, what was that for, and why would anyone permit that to happen repeatedly), it would be more natural to start a new sentence. Whereas, if restricting the main clause, the dog may well remain in object position, as the dog is not a subject that could be actively responsible for those actions. Phrasing the given relative clause with the dog as an accusative object would be rather difficult though (the passive transposition would use dativ "von dem"). Therefore it's not done and the resulting argument is subjective, not objective, and thus not conclusive. We would naturally have to ask, "what, wait a second, you don't even like the dog and let it be kicked?". Better would be thus, "... meinen Hund, den ich sowieso nicht mag, denn der ärgert mich immer". That's a matter of style more than grammar, and in many cases it is fine either way. But it's a good question.






            share|improve this answer
























            • Of course, careful written English will often still use "whom I just barely like", but this is really foreign to many native English speakers while the use of the correct case for the relative pronoun comes naturally to native German speakers.

              – Carsten S
              20 hours ago














            1












            1








            1







            It's very much the same in English, "John loves Isi, who I just barely like". The grammatical case does not prohibit the construction, as @David said.



            However, it might be more pleasing to continue in the same case, "... meinen Hund, den ...", leaving it in an object position. Although there's no overt preference, it stands to reason. Unless the relative clause restricts or explains the main clause (I mean what the hell, Jack, what was that for, and why would anyone permit that to happen repeatedly), it would be more natural to start a new sentence. Whereas, if restricting the main clause, the dog may well remain in object position, as the dog is not a subject that could be actively responsible for those actions. Phrasing the given relative clause with the dog as an accusative object would be rather difficult though (the passive transposition would use dativ "von dem"). Therefore it's not done and the resulting argument is subjective, not objective, and thus not conclusive. We would naturally have to ask, "what, wait a second, you don't even like the dog and let it be kicked?". Better would be thus, "... meinen Hund, den ich sowieso nicht mag, denn der ärgert mich immer". That's a matter of style more than grammar, and in many cases it is fine either way. But it's a good question.






            share|improve this answer













            It's very much the same in English, "John loves Isi, who I just barely like". The grammatical case does not prohibit the construction, as @David said.



            However, it might be more pleasing to continue in the same case, "... meinen Hund, den ...", leaving it in an object position. Although there's no overt preference, it stands to reason. Unless the relative clause restricts or explains the main clause (I mean what the hell, Jack, what was that for, and why would anyone permit that to happen repeatedly), it would be more natural to start a new sentence. Whereas, if restricting the main clause, the dog may well remain in object position, as the dog is not a subject that could be actively responsible for those actions. Phrasing the given relative clause with the dog as an accusative object would be rather difficult though (the passive transposition would use dativ "von dem"). Therefore it's not done and the resulting argument is subjective, not objective, and thus not conclusive. We would naturally have to ask, "what, wait a second, you don't even like the dog and let it be kicked?". Better would be thus, "... meinen Hund, den ich sowieso nicht mag, denn der ärgert mich immer". That's a matter of style more than grammar, and in many cases it is fine either way. But it's a good question.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 23 hours ago









            vectoryvectory

            50010




            50010













            • Of course, careful written English will often still use "whom I just barely like", but this is really foreign to many native English speakers while the use of the correct case for the relative pronoun comes naturally to native German speakers.

              – Carsten S
              20 hours ago



















            • Of course, careful written English will often still use "whom I just barely like", but this is really foreign to many native English speakers while the use of the correct case for the relative pronoun comes naturally to native German speakers.

              – Carsten S
              20 hours ago

















            Of course, careful written English will often still use "whom I just barely like", but this is really foreign to many native English speakers while the use of the correct case for the relative pronoun comes naturally to native German speakers.

            – Carsten S
            20 hours ago





            Of course, careful written English will often still use "whom I just barely like", but this is really foreign to many native English speakers while the use of the correct case for the relative pronoun comes naturally to native German speakers.

            – Carsten S
            20 hours ago











            1














            BEcause the dog is the subject in the relative sentence.






            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            Gismo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.










            We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.















            • This answer makes some sense, but only after the edit to the title that was not done by the OP.

              – Carsten S
              19 hours ago
















            1














            BEcause the dog is the subject in the relative sentence.






            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            Gismo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.










            We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.















            • This answer makes some sense, but only after the edit to the title that was not done by the OP.

              – Carsten S
              19 hours ago














            1












            1








            1







            BEcause the dog is the subject in the relative sentence.






            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            Gismo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.










            BEcause the dog is the subject in the relative sentence.







            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            Gismo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer






            New contributor




            Gismo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            answered 19 hours ago









            GismoGismo

            211




            211




            New contributor




            Gismo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.





            New contributor





            Gismo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            Gismo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.



            We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.




            We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.














            • This answer makes some sense, but only after the edit to the title that was not done by the OP.

              – Carsten S
              19 hours ago



















            • This answer makes some sense, but only after the edit to the title that was not done by the OP.

              – Carsten S
              19 hours ago

















            This answer makes some sense, but only after the edit to the title that was not done by the OP.

            – Carsten S
            19 hours ago





            This answer makes some sense, but only after the edit to the title that was not done by the OP.

            – Carsten S
            19 hours ago


















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to German Language Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fgerman.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f50543%2fwhy-does-this-relative-pronoun-not-take-the-case-of-the-noun-it-is-referring-to%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            How to label and detect the document text images

            Vallis Paradisi

            Tabula Rosettana