Why does “sattsehen” take accusative “mich”, not dative “mir”? Even though it is not “me” that I'm looking at?Why is it “es tut mir leid” and not “es tut mich leid”?Why does “unter” not take dative case in “unter etwas fallen”?Why does “Wie geht es dir?”, use a dative object?A list of verbs that take only dative objectsWhy the need to use the Accusative case instead of the Dative in “ab nächsten Monat”?Does »über« take dative or accusative when it means »about«?Authority for verbs that take dative direct objectsA list of verbs that take only accusative objectsWhy does this relative pronoun not take the case of the noun it is referring to?“Ich sehn' mich nach der Isar Strand.” — Why not “dem”?
Supporting developers who insist on using their pet language
Occasus nescius
What would the EU do if an EU member declared war on another EU member?
Bronze Age Underwater Civilization
Optimising Table wrapping over a Select
Are there any double stars that I can actually see orbit each other?
A DVR algebra with weird automorphisms
Replacements for swear words
Is `curl something | sudo bash -` a reasonably safe installation method?
Dropping outliers based on "2.5 times the RMSE"
Email about missed connecting flight compensation 5 months after flight, is there a point?
Where or how can I find what interfaces an out of the box Apex class implements?
Extract an attribute value from XML
Cops: The Hidden OEIS Substring
Crowbar circuit causes unexpected behavior for op amp circuit
Do native speakers use ZVE or CPU?
Steampunk helicopter
Are randomly-generated passwords starting with "a" less secure?
Is killing off one of my queer characters homophobic?
How the name "craqueuhhe" is read
Credit union holding car note, refuses to provide details of how payments have been applied
Why did my rum cake turn black?
Can I call 112 to check a police officer's identity in the Czech Republic?
Does Google Maps take into account hills/inclines for route times?
Why does “sattsehen” take accusative “mich”, not dative “mir”? Even though it is not “me” that I'm looking at?
Why is it “es tut mir leid” and not “es tut mich leid”?Why does “unter” not take dative case in “unter etwas fallen”?Why does “Wie geht es dir?”, use a dative object?A list of verbs that take only dative objectsWhy the need to use the Accusative case instead of the Dative in “ab nächsten Monat”?Does »über« take dative or accusative when it means »about«?Authority for verbs that take dative direct objectsA list of verbs that take only accusative objectsWhy does this relative pronoun not take the case of the noun it is referring to?“Ich sehn' mich nach der Isar Strand.” — Why not “dem”?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
Why "mich"?
Ich kann mich daran gar nicht sattsehen.
Instead of,
Ich kann mir daran gar nicht sattsehen.
The thing I'm looking at is something meant by "daran", so doesn't accusative "mich" make it sound like "I'm looking at myself"?
My confusion comes from a similar construct,
mir etwas ansehen
grammatical-case
add a comment |
Why "mich"?
Ich kann mich daran gar nicht sattsehen.
Instead of,
Ich kann mir daran gar nicht sattsehen.
The thing I'm looking at is something meant by "daran", so doesn't accusative "mich" make it sound like "I'm looking at myself"?
My confusion comes from a similar construct,
mir etwas ansehen
grammatical-case
5
Searching a "why" answer for syntax phenomena is usually rather pointless. There is no actual logic behind it. Just accept that the expression is as it is.
– Christian Geiselmann
Jul 4 at 9:27
add a comment |
Why "mich"?
Ich kann mich daran gar nicht sattsehen.
Instead of,
Ich kann mir daran gar nicht sattsehen.
The thing I'm looking at is something meant by "daran", so doesn't accusative "mich" make it sound like "I'm looking at myself"?
My confusion comes from a similar construct,
mir etwas ansehen
grammatical-case
Why "mich"?
Ich kann mich daran gar nicht sattsehen.
Instead of,
Ich kann mir daran gar nicht sattsehen.
The thing I'm looking at is something meant by "daran", so doesn't accusative "mich" make it sound like "I'm looking at myself"?
My confusion comes from a similar construct,
mir etwas ansehen
grammatical-case
grammatical-case
asked Jul 4 at 8:56
DasshoesDasshoes
1894 bronze badges
1894 bronze badges
5
Searching a "why" answer for syntax phenomena is usually rather pointless. There is no actual logic behind it. Just accept that the expression is as it is.
– Christian Geiselmann
Jul 4 at 9:27
add a comment |
5
Searching a "why" answer for syntax phenomena is usually rather pointless. There is no actual logic behind it. Just accept that the expression is as it is.
– Christian Geiselmann
Jul 4 at 9:27
5
5
Searching a "why" answer for syntax phenomena is usually rather pointless. There is no actual logic behind it. Just accept that the expression is as it is.
– Christian Geiselmann
Jul 4 at 9:27
Searching a "why" answer for syntax phenomena is usually rather pointless. There is no actual logic behind it. Just accept that the expression is as it is.
– Christian Geiselmann
Jul 4 at 9:27
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
Don't concentrate that much on sehen, rather on the meaning of satt when trying to make sense of sattsehen. That's crucial for understanding why the accusative is correct here.
The Duden gives the following meaning for sattsehen:
sich etwas so oft, so lange ansehen, dass es einem reicht
Langenscheidt gives the following possible translation:
Not to be able to see enough of
What you are looking at is daran.
And your action (sattsehen) does have an effect on someone, namely you. Hence it's accusative (Wen oder Was? -> mich. Wen sehe ich satt? Mich!).
You cannot look at daran for so long, that you have enough of doing so. You are not able to see enough of daran.
Satt can mean full up, satisfied, satiated. It's usually used when you ate enough and now cannot eat more. (as guidot noted in a comment, sattessen has the same accusative construction).
In your example, it's a bit complicated because it's a kind of double negation:
Sattsehen -> You are satiated. You can not see more of it.- Whatever daran is, you can not see enough of it. Sattsehen is negated.
10
Sattsehen is pretty similar to sattessen, it's the same mich accusative construction.
– guidot
Jul 4 at 9:25
@guidot, very good point :) After all when I say "Ich esse mich satt", I'm usually not eating myself.
– Turion
Jul 5 at 12:43
add a comment |
First, note the formal difference: etwas ansehen already has an accusative object. Therefore, if another nominal object is to appear, it must be in the dative. (There is only a handful of exceptions to this rule.)
Second, the pattern that builds sattsehen is productive. The adjective is interpreted as a resultative predicative pertaining to the single object, which is in the accusative. The accusative is to be expected in that the object is undergoing a change of state, with the resultant state being described by the adjective. In the case of sich sattsehen, think seeing so much of something that you have become satiated (i.e. don't want to look at it any further). Further examples:
Ich habe mich müde gelaufen.
"I walked so much that I am tired now."
Er hat sich schwarzgeärgert.
Lit. "He was so angry that he is now black.", i.e. "He got really angry."
Sie hat sich warmgeredet.
Lit. "She has talked so much that she is now warmed-up."
Man hat ihn grün und blau geschlagen.
"They hit him until he was black and blue."
Es hat schon wieder jemand eine Katze totgefahren.
Lit. "Someone drove a cat dead again.", i.e. "Someone ran over a cat again."
The predicative doesn't need to be an adjective.
Sie hat sich in Fahrt/Rage geredet. (similar to the third example above)
Note that whether the object is reflexive or not is dictated by plausibility. So although sattsehen is always reflexive, müde laufen does not need to be:
Die Mannschaft hat den Gegner müde gelaufen.
"The team ran their opponent ragged."
Sattsehen likes to appear in the idiom sich (an etwas) nicht sattsehen können.
Die Landschaft war so schön, daß man sich an ihr nicht sattsehen konnte.
"The landscape was so beautiful that you couldn't get enough of it."
Thank you so much. In the following sentence though, using dative "dir" is wrong, right? "Du solltest (dir) deine Hoffnungen lieber nicht all zu hoch ansetzen."
– Dasshoes
Jul 4 at 10:21
2
@Dasshoes I think it's not customary. German allows adding datives pretty freely (grammars literally talk about freie Dative), therefore the sentence sounds more unusual than plain wrong.
– David Vogt
Jul 4 at 10:27
1
Ich lach mich schlapp
– Hagen von Eitzen
Jul 4 at 16:44
Sich is the same in the dative as in the accusative. So it is a bad pronoun to use in examples to show the use of the accusative!
– TonyK
Jul 4 at 20:07
@TonyK OP already knows it's an accusative. Also, three examples have an unambiguous accusative?
– David Vogt
Jul 4 at 20:12
|
show 1 more comment
The "mich" part just refers to the fact that one is the actor himself e.g. you are the one who does the looking.
Compare to the term "sich erinnern" (to remember) -> "ich erinnere mich" does not mean 'I remember me', but rather that I am the one remembering something/someone
So in the case of "mich sattsehen" the mich is not ruled by the act of looking, but by the sating of the desire to look at someting :)
As such it roughly transcribes as 'I sate myself (accusative) by looking at sth.'
add a comment |
I think your confusion is about daran. It's very different from etwas, because it replaces a prepositional object or adverbial. That's because of the built-in preposition an:
Ich kann mich daran gar nicht sattsehen.
Ich kann mich an (so) etwas gar nicht sattsehen.
In contrary, a plain etwas is indeed an accusative object.
"Ich kann mir etwas gar nicht sattsehen."
Ich kann mir etwas gar nicht ansehen.
In contrary to ansehen, the accusative object of sattsehen isn't the object ogled at however, but the thing or person which experiences the effect. That's the common use for the accusative object.
Ich kann mich gar nicht sattsehen.
This is similar with German verbs which take two accusative objects
Sie lehrt mich etwas Neues.
add a comment |
What you have there is a classical German construct of sich + verb. That's the reason why it conjugates the way you describe.
Take for example sich + freuen (to be happy):
The forms are:
- ich freue mich
- du freust dich
- er/sie/es freut sich
- wir freuen uns
- ihr freut euch
- sie freuen sich
Similarly, in your sentence the construct is sich + sattsehen (to be satisfied watching). However, the Grammar slightly changes because sattsehen is a separable verb. Therefore:
- ich sehe mich satt
- du siehst dich satt
- er/sie/es sieht sich satt
- wir sehen uns satt
- ihr seht euch satt
- sie sehen sich satt
This can be further extended by the form sich an etwas/jemand sattsehen (to be satisfied watching something/someone). With this, you are able to specify what you are watching. For example:
- ich sehe mich daran satt
- ...
However, for a person this might be:
- ich sehe mich an dir satt
- ich sehe mich an ihr/ihm satt
- ...
Or for a narcissist:
- ich sehe mich an mir satt
The above might be the the reason for your confusion. These sentences look quite similar, but are in fact very different in meaning.
Last but not least, you have a negation with können in your sentence:
- Ich kann mich [...] nicht sattsehen.
This changes the Grammar to the way können works. (sattsehen is no longer separated, as it is not the predicate in this sentence.) Furthermore, the meaning switches from: I'm satisfied watching [...].
to I cannot stop watching [...] (satisfiedly).
add a comment |
A nice way to look at it is that "sattsehen" doesn't so much come from "sehen" but is more related to "gewöhnen". When you get used to the sight of something extraordinary, you can say this: "Ich habe mich daran gewöhnt, es zu sehen." Or you can say the following: "Ich habe mich daran sattgesehen."
You probably shouldn't look for logical consistency in any human language, after all, we've failed to describe them mathematically, no matter which brilliant minds tried just that. It's the same in English. The only thing we can do is make it easier for ourselves to remember the quirks.
add a comment |
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
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fgerman.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f53045%2fwhy-does-sattsehen-take-accusative-mich-not-dative-mir-even-though-it-is%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Don't concentrate that much on sehen, rather on the meaning of satt when trying to make sense of sattsehen. That's crucial for understanding why the accusative is correct here.
The Duden gives the following meaning for sattsehen:
sich etwas so oft, so lange ansehen, dass es einem reicht
Langenscheidt gives the following possible translation:
Not to be able to see enough of
What you are looking at is daran.
And your action (sattsehen) does have an effect on someone, namely you. Hence it's accusative (Wen oder Was? -> mich. Wen sehe ich satt? Mich!).
You cannot look at daran for so long, that you have enough of doing so. You are not able to see enough of daran.
Satt can mean full up, satisfied, satiated. It's usually used when you ate enough and now cannot eat more. (as guidot noted in a comment, sattessen has the same accusative construction).
In your example, it's a bit complicated because it's a kind of double negation:
Sattsehen -> You are satiated. You can not see more of it.- Whatever daran is, you can not see enough of it. Sattsehen is negated.
10
Sattsehen is pretty similar to sattessen, it's the same mich accusative construction.
– guidot
Jul 4 at 9:25
@guidot, very good point :) After all when I say "Ich esse mich satt", I'm usually not eating myself.
– Turion
Jul 5 at 12:43
add a comment |
Don't concentrate that much on sehen, rather on the meaning of satt when trying to make sense of sattsehen. That's crucial for understanding why the accusative is correct here.
The Duden gives the following meaning for sattsehen:
sich etwas so oft, so lange ansehen, dass es einem reicht
Langenscheidt gives the following possible translation:
Not to be able to see enough of
What you are looking at is daran.
And your action (sattsehen) does have an effect on someone, namely you. Hence it's accusative (Wen oder Was? -> mich. Wen sehe ich satt? Mich!).
You cannot look at daran for so long, that you have enough of doing so. You are not able to see enough of daran.
Satt can mean full up, satisfied, satiated. It's usually used when you ate enough and now cannot eat more. (as guidot noted in a comment, sattessen has the same accusative construction).
In your example, it's a bit complicated because it's a kind of double negation:
Sattsehen -> You are satiated. You can not see more of it.- Whatever daran is, you can not see enough of it. Sattsehen is negated.
10
Sattsehen is pretty similar to sattessen, it's the same mich accusative construction.
– guidot
Jul 4 at 9:25
@guidot, very good point :) After all when I say "Ich esse mich satt", I'm usually not eating myself.
– Turion
Jul 5 at 12:43
add a comment |
Don't concentrate that much on sehen, rather on the meaning of satt when trying to make sense of sattsehen. That's crucial for understanding why the accusative is correct here.
The Duden gives the following meaning for sattsehen:
sich etwas so oft, so lange ansehen, dass es einem reicht
Langenscheidt gives the following possible translation:
Not to be able to see enough of
What you are looking at is daran.
And your action (sattsehen) does have an effect on someone, namely you. Hence it's accusative (Wen oder Was? -> mich. Wen sehe ich satt? Mich!).
You cannot look at daran for so long, that you have enough of doing so. You are not able to see enough of daran.
Satt can mean full up, satisfied, satiated. It's usually used when you ate enough and now cannot eat more. (as guidot noted in a comment, sattessen has the same accusative construction).
In your example, it's a bit complicated because it's a kind of double negation:
Sattsehen -> You are satiated. You can not see more of it.- Whatever daran is, you can not see enough of it. Sattsehen is negated.
Don't concentrate that much on sehen, rather on the meaning of satt when trying to make sense of sattsehen. That's crucial for understanding why the accusative is correct here.
The Duden gives the following meaning for sattsehen:
sich etwas so oft, so lange ansehen, dass es einem reicht
Langenscheidt gives the following possible translation:
Not to be able to see enough of
What you are looking at is daran.
And your action (sattsehen) does have an effect on someone, namely you. Hence it's accusative (Wen oder Was? -> mich. Wen sehe ich satt? Mich!).
You cannot look at daran for so long, that you have enough of doing so. You are not able to see enough of daran.
Satt can mean full up, satisfied, satiated. It's usually used when you ate enough and now cannot eat more. (as guidot noted in a comment, sattessen has the same accusative construction).
In your example, it's a bit complicated because it's a kind of double negation:
Sattsehen -> You are satiated. You can not see more of it.- Whatever daran is, you can not see enough of it. Sattsehen is negated.
edited Jul 4 at 9:36
answered Jul 4 at 9:07
The Awful LanguageThe Awful Language
6422 silver badges13 bronze badges
6422 silver badges13 bronze badges
10
Sattsehen is pretty similar to sattessen, it's the same mich accusative construction.
– guidot
Jul 4 at 9:25
@guidot, very good point :) After all when I say "Ich esse mich satt", I'm usually not eating myself.
– Turion
Jul 5 at 12:43
add a comment |
10
Sattsehen is pretty similar to sattessen, it's the same mich accusative construction.
– guidot
Jul 4 at 9:25
@guidot, very good point :) After all when I say "Ich esse mich satt", I'm usually not eating myself.
– Turion
Jul 5 at 12:43
10
10
Sattsehen is pretty similar to sattessen, it's the same mich accusative construction.
– guidot
Jul 4 at 9:25
Sattsehen is pretty similar to sattessen, it's the same mich accusative construction.
– guidot
Jul 4 at 9:25
@guidot, very good point :) After all when I say "Ich esse mich satt", I'm usually not eating myself.
– Turion
Jul 5 at 12:43
@guidot, very good point :) After all when I say "Ich esse mich satt", I'm usually not eating myself.
– Turion
Jul 5 at 12:43
add a comment |
First, note the formal difference: etwas ansehen already has an accusative object. Therefore, if another nominal object is to appear, it must be in the dative. (There is only a handful of exceptions to this rule.)
Second, the pattern that builds sattsehen is productive. The adjective is interpreted as a resultative predicative pertaining to the single object, which is in the accusative. The accusative is to be expected in that the object is undergoing a change of state, with the resultant state being described by the adjective. In the case of sich sattsehen, think seeing so much of something that you have become satiated (i.e. don't want to look at it any further). Further examples:
Ich habe mich müde gelaufen.
"I walked so much that I am tired now."
Er hat sich schwarzgeärgert.
Lit. "He was so angry that he is now black.", i.e. "He got really angry."
Sie hat sich warmgeredet.
Lit. "She has talked so much that she is now warmed-up."
Man hat ihn grün und blau geschlagen.
"They hit him until he was black and blue."
Es hat schon wieder jemand eine Katze totgefahren.
Lit. "Someone drove a cat dead again.", i.e. "Someone ran over a cat again."
The predicative doesn't need to be an adjective.
Sie hat sich in Fahrt/Rage geredet. (similar to the third example above)
Note that whether the object is reflexive or not is dictated by plausibility. So although sattsehen is always reflexive, müde laufen does not need to be:
Die Mannschaft hat den Gegner müde gelaufen.
"The team ran their opponent ragged."
Sattsehen likes to appear in the idiom sich (an etwas) nicht sattsehen können.
Die Landschaft war so schön, daß man sich an ihr nicht sattsehen konnte.
"The landscape was so beautiful that you couldn't get enough of it."
Thank you so much. In the following sentence though, using dative "dir" is wrong, right? "Du solltest (dir) deine Hoffnungen lieber nicht all zu hoch ansetzen."
– Dasshoes
Jul 4 at 10:21
2
@Dasshoes I think it's not customary. German allows adding datives pretty freely (grammars literally talk about freie Dative), therefore the sentence sounds more unusual than plain wrong.
– David Vogt
Jul 4 at 10:27
1
Ich lach mich schlapp
– Hagen von Eitzen
Jul 4 at 16:44
Sich is the same in the dative as in the accusative. So it is a bad pronoun to use in examples to show the use of the accusative!
– TonyK
Jul 4 at 20:07
@TonyK OP already knows it's an accusative. Also, three examples have an unambiguous accusative?
– David Vogt
Jul 4 at 20:12
|
show 1 more comment
First, note the formal difference: etwas ansehen already has an accusative object. Therefore, if another nominal object is to appear, it must be in the dative. (There is only a handful of exceptions to this rule.)
Second, the pattern that builds sattsehen is productive. The adjective is interpreted as a resultative predicative pertaining to the single object, which is in the accusative. The accusative is to be expected in that the object is undergoing a change of state, with the resultant state being described by the adjective. In the case of sich sattsehen, think seeing so much of something that you have become satiated (i.e. don't want to look at it any further). Further examples:
Ich habe mich müde gelaufen.
"I walked so much that I am tired now."
Er hat sich schwarzgeärgert.
Lit. "He was so angry that he is now black.", i.e. "He got really angry."
Sie hat sich warmgeredet.
Lit. "She has talked so much that she is now warmed-up."
Man hat ihn grün und blau geschlagen.
"They hit him until he was black and blue."
Es hat schon wieder jemand eine Katze totgefahren.
Lit. "Someone drove a cat dead again.", i.e. "Someone ran over a cat again."
The predicative doesn't need to be an adjective.
Sie hat sich in Fahrt/Rage geredet. (similar to the third example above)
Note that whether the object is reflexive or not is dictated by plausibility. So although sattsehen is always reflexive, müde laufen does not need to be:
Die Mannschaft hat den Gegner müde gelaufen.
"The team ran their opponent ragged."
Sattsehen likes to appear in the idiom sich (an etwas) nicht sattsehen können.
Die Landschaft war so schön, daß man sich an ihr nicht sattsehen konnte.
"The landscape was so beautiful that you couldn't get enough of it."
Thank you so much. In the following sentence though, using dative "dir" is wrong, right? "Du solltest (dir) deine Hoffnungen lieber nicht all zu hoch ansetzen."
– Dasshoes
Jul 4 at 10:21
2
@Dasshoes I think it's not customary. German allows adding datives pretty freely (grammars literally talk about freie Dative), therefore the sentence sounds more unusual than plain wrong.
– David Vogt
Jul 4 at 10:27
1
Ich lach mich schlapp
– Hagen von Eitzen
Jul 4 at 16:44
Sich is the same in the dative as in the accusative. So it is a bad pronoun to use in examples to show the use of the accusative!
– TonyK
Jul 4 at 20:07
@TonyK OP already knows it's an accusative. Also, three examples have an unambiguous accusative?
– David Vogt
Jul 4 at 20:12
|
show 1 more comment
First, note the formal difference: etwas ansehen already has an accusative object. Therefore, if another nominal object is to appear, it must be in the dative. (There is only a handful of exceptions to this rule.)
Second, the pattern that builds sattsehen is productive. The adjective is interpreted as a resultative predicative pertaining to the single object, which is in the accusative. The accusative is to be expected in that the object is undergoing a change of state, with the resultant state being described by the adjective. In the case of sich sattsehen, think seeing so much of something that you have become satiated (i.e. don't want to look at it any further). Further examples:
Ich habe mich müde gelaufen.
"I walked so much that I am tired now."
Er hat sich schwarzgeärgert.
Lit. "He was so angry that he is now black.", i.e. "He got really angry."
Sie hat sich warmgeredet.
Lit. "She has talked so much that she is now warmed-up."
Man hat ihn grün und blau geschlagen.
"They hit him until he was black and blue."
Es hat schon wieder jemand eine Katze totgefahren.
Lit. "Someone drove a cat dead again.", i.e. "Someone ran over a cat again."
The predicative doesn't need to be an adjective.
Sie hat sich in Fahrt/Rage geredet. (similar to the third example above)
Note that whether the object is reflexive or not is dictated by plausibility. So although sattsehen is always reflexive, müde laufen does not need to be:
Die Mannschaft hat den Gegner müde gelaufen.
"The team ran their opponent ragged."
Sattsehen likes to appear in the idiom sich (an etwas) nicht sattsehen können.
Die Landschaft war so schön, daß man sich an ihr nicht sattsehen konnte.
"The landscape was so beautiful that you couldn't get enough of it."
First, note the formal difference: etwas ansehen already has an accusative object. Therefore, if another nominal object is to appear, it must be in the dative. (There is only a handful of exceptions to this rule.)
Second, the pattern that builds sattsehen is productive. The adjective is interpreted as a resultative predicative pertaining to the single object, which is in the accusative. The accusative is to be expected in that the object is undergoing a change of state, with the resultant state being described by the adjective. In the case of sich sattsehen, think seeing so much of something that you have become satiated (i.e. don't want to look at it any further). Further examples:
Ich habe mich müde gelaufen.
"I walked so much that I am tired now."
Er hat sich schwarzgeärgert.
Lit. "He was so angry that he is now black.", i.e. "He got really angry."
Sie hat sich warmgeredet.
Lit. "She has talked so much that she is now warmed-up."
Man hat ihn grün und blau geschlagen.
"They hit him until he was black and blue."
Es hat schon wieder jemand eine Katze totgefahren.
Lit. "Someone drove a cat dead again.", i.e. "Someone ran over a cat again."
The predicative doesn't need to be an adjective.
Sie hat sich in Fahrt/Rage geredet. (similar to the third example above)
Note that whether the object is reflexive or not is dictated by plausibility. So although sattsehen is always reflexive, müde laufen does not need to be:
Die Mannschaft hat den Gegner müde gelaufen.
"The team ran their opponent ragged."
Sattsehen likes to appear in the idiom sich (an etwas) nicht sattsehen können.
Die Landschaft war so schön, daß man sich an ihr nicht sattsehen konnte.
"The landscape was so beautiful that you couldn't get enough of it."
edited Jul 4 at 10:43
answered Jul 4 at 9:42
David VogtDavid Vogt
7,6901 gold badge8 silver badges39 bronze badges
7,6901 gold badge8 silver badges39 bronze badges
Thank you so much. In the following sentence though, using dative "dir" is wrong, right? "Du solltest (dir) deine Hoffnungen lieber nicht all zu hoch ansetzen."
– Dasshoes
Jul 4 at 10:21
2
@Dasshoes I think it's not customary. German allows adding datives pretty freely (grammars literally talk about freie Dative), therefore the sentence sounds more unusual than plain wrong.
– David Vogt
Jul 4 at 10:27
1
Ich lach mich schlapp
– Hagen von Eitzen
Jul 4 at 16:44
Sich is the same in the dative as in the accusative. So it is a bad pronoun to use in examples to show the use of the accusative!
– TonyK
Jul 4 at 20:07
@TonyK OP already knows it's an accusative. Also, three examples have an unambiguous accusative?
– David Vogt
Jul 4 at 20:12
|
show 1 more comment
Thank you so much. In the following sentence though, using dative "dir" is wrong, right? "Du solltest (dir) deine Hoffnungen lieber nicht all zu hoch ansetzen."
– Dasshoes
Jul 4 at 10:21
2
@Dasshoes I think it's not customary. German allows adding datives pretty freely (grammars literally talk about freie Dative), therefore the sentence sounds more unusual than plain wrong.
– David Vogt
Jul 4 at 10:27
1
Ich lach mich schlapp
– Hagen von Eitzen
Jul 4 at 16:44
Sich is the same in the dative as in the accusative. So it is a bad pronoun to use in examples to show the use of the accusative!
– TonyK
Jul 4 at 20:07
@TonyK OP already knows it's an accusative. Also, three examples have an unambiguous accusative?
– David Vogt
Jul 4 at 20:12
Thank you so much. In the following sentence though, using dative "dir" is wrong, right? "Du solltest (dir) deine Hoffnungen lieber nicht all zu hoch ansetzen."
– Dasshoes
Jul 4 at 10:21
Thank you so much. In the following sentence though, using dative "dir" is wrong, right? "Du solltest (dir) deine Hoffnungen lieber nicht all zu hoch ansetzen."
– Dasshoes
Jul 4 at 10:21
2
2
@Dasshoes I think it's not customary. German allows adding datives pretty freely (grammars literally talk about freie Dative), therefore the sentence sounds more unusual than plain wrong.
– David Vogt
Jul 4 at 10:27
@Dasshoes I think it's not customary. German allows adding datives pretty freely (grammars literally talk about freie Dative), therefore the sentence sounds more unusual than plain wrong.
– David Vogt
Jul 4 at 10:27
1
1
Ich lach mich schlapp
– Hagen von Eitzen
Jul 4 at 16:44
Ich lach mich schlapp
– Hagen von Eitzen
Jul 4 at 16:44
Sich is the same in the dative as in the accusative. So it is a bad pronoun to use in examples to show the use of the accusative!
– TonyK
Jul 4 at 20:07
Sich is the same in the dative as in the accusative. So it is a bad pronoun to use in examples to show the use of the accusative!
– TonyK
Jul 4 at 20:07
@TonyK OP already knows it's an accusative. Also, three examples have an unambiguous accusative?
– David Vogt
Jul 4 at 20:12
@TonyK OP already knows it's an accusative. Also, three examples have an unambiguous accusative?
– David Vogt
Jul 4 at 20:12
|
show 1 more comment
The "mich" part just refers to the fact that one is the actor himself e.g. you are the one who does the looking.
Compare to the term "sich erinnern" (to remember) -> "ich erinnere mich" does not mean 'I remember me', but rather that I am the one remembering something/someone
So in the case of "mich sattsehen" the mich is not ruled by the act of looking, but by the sating of the desire to look at someting :)
As such it roughly transcribes as 'I sate myself (accusative) by looking at sth.'
add a comment |
The "mich" part just refers to the fact that one is the actor himself e.g. you are the one who does the looking.
Compare to the term "sich erinnern" (to remember) -> "ich erinnere mich" does not mean 'I remember me', but rather that I am the one remembering something/someone
So in the case of "mich sattsehen" the mich is not ruled by the act of looking, but by the sating of the desire to look at someting :)
As such it roughly transcribes as 'I sate myself (accusative) by looking at sth.'
add a comment |
The "mich" part just refers to the fact that one is the actor himself e.g. you are the one who does the looking.
Compare to the term "sich erinnern" (to remember) -> "ich erinnere mich" does not mean 'I remember me', but rather that I am the one remembering something/someone
So in the case of "mich sattsehen" the mich is not ruled by the act of looking, but by the sating of the desire to look at someting :)
As such it roughly transcribes as 'I sate myself (accusative) by looking at sth.'
The "mich" part just refers to the fact that one is the actor himself e.g. you are the one who does the looking.
Compare to the term "sich erinnern" (to remember) -> "ich erinnere mich" does not mean 'I remember me', but rather that I am the one remembering something/someone
So in the case of "mich sattsehen" the mich is not ruled by the act of looking, but by the sating of the desire to look at someting :)
As such it roughly transcribes as 'I sate myself (accusative) by looking at sth.'
edited Jul 4 at 10:36
answered Jul 4 at 9:41
PhiSePhiSe
313 bronze badges
313 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
I think your confusion is about daran. It's very different from etwas, because it replaces a prepositional object or adverbial. That's because of the built-in preposition an:
Ich kann mich daran gar nicht sattsehen.
Ich kann mich an (so) etwas gar nicht sattsehen.
In contrary, a plain etwas is indeed an accusative object.
"Ich kann mir etwas gar nicht sattsehen."
Ich kann mir etwas gar nicht ansehen.
In contrary to ansehen, the accusative object of sattsehen isn't the object ogled at however, but the thing or person which experiences the effect. That's the common use for the accusative object.
Ich kann mich gar nicht sattsehen.
This is similar with German verbs which take two accusative objects
Sie lehrt mich etwas Neues.
add a comment |
I think your confusion is about daran. It's very different from etwas, because it replaces a prepositional object or adverbial. That's because of the built-in preposition an:
Ich kann mich daran gar nicht sattsehen.
Ich kann mich an (so) etwas gar nicht sattsehen.
In contrary, a plain etwas is indeed an accusative object.
"Ich kann mir etwas gar nicht sattsehen."
Ich kann mir etwas gar nicht ansehen.
In contrary to ansehen, the accusative object of sattsehen isn't the object ogled at however, but the thing or person which experiences the effect. That's the common use for the accusative object.
Ich kann mich gar nicht sattsehen.
This is similar with German verbs which take two accusative objects
Sie lehrt mich etwas Neues.
add a comment |
I think your confusion is about daran. It's very different from etwas, because it replaces a prepositional object or adverbial. That's because of the built-in preposition an:
Ich kann mich daran gar nicht sattsehen.
Ich kann mich an (so) etwas gar nicht sattsehen.
In contrary, a plain etwas is indeed an accusative object.
"Ich kann mir etwas gar nicht sattsehen."
Ich kann mir etwas gar nicht ansehen.
In contrary to ansehen, the accusative object of sattsehen isn't the object ogled at however, but the thing or person which experiences the effect. That's the common use for the accusative object.
Ich kann mich gar nicht sattsehen.
This is similar with German verbs which take two accusative objects
Sie lehrt mich etwas Neues.
I think your confusion is about daran. It's very different from etwas, because it replaces a prepositional object or adverbial. That's because of the built-in preposition an:
Ich kann mich daran gar nicht sattsehen.
Ich kann mich an (so) etwas gar nicht sattsehen.
In contrary, a plain etwas is indeed an accusative object.
"Ich kann mir etwas gar nicht sattsehen."
Ich kann mir etwas gar nicht ansehen.
In contrary to ansehen, the accusative object of sattsehen isn't the object ogled at however, but the thing or person which experiences the effect. That's the common use for the accusative object.
Ich kann mich gar nicht sattsehen.
This is similar with German verbs which take two accusative objects
Sie lehrt mich etwas Neues.
edited Jul 4 at 14:21
answered Jul 4 at 13:44
JankaJanka
37.2k2 gold badges30 silver badges69 bronze badges
37.2k2 gold badges30 silver badges69 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
What you have there is a classical German construct of sich + verb. That's the reason why it conjugates the way you describe.
Take for example sich + freuen (to be happy):
The forms are:
- ich freue mich
- du freust dich
- er/sie/es freut sich
- wir freuen uns
- ihr freut euch
- sie freuen sich
Similarly, in your sentence the construct is sich + sattsehen (to be satisfied watching). However, the Grammar slightly changes because sattsehen is a separable verb. Therefore:
- ich sehe mich satt
- du siehst dich satt
- er/sie/es sieht sich satt
- wir sehen uns satt
- ihr seht euch satt
- sie sehen sich satt
This can be further extended by the form sich an etwas/jemand sattsehen (to be satisfied watching something/someone). With this, you are able to specify what you are watching. For example:
- ich sehe mich daran satt
- ...
However, for a person this might be:
- ich sehe mich an dir satt
- ich sehe mich an ihr/ihm satt
- ...
Or for a narcissist:
- ich sehe mich an mir satt
The above might be the the reason for your confusion. These sentences look quite similar, but are in fact very different in meaning.
Last but not least, you have a negation with können in your sentence:
- Ich kann mich [...] nicht sattsehen.
This changes the Grammar to the way können works. (sattsehen is no longer separated, as it is not the predicate in this sentence.) Furthermore, the meaning switches from: I'm satisfied watching [...].
to I cannot stop watching [...] (satisfiedly).
add a comment |
What you have there is a classical German construct of sich + verb. That's the reason why it conjugates the way you describe.
Take for example sich + freuen (to be happy):
The forms are:
- ich freue mich
- du freust dich
- er/sie/es freut sich
- wir freuen uns
- ihr freut euch
- sie freuen sich
Similarly, in your sentence the construct is sich + sattsehen (to be satisfied watching). However, the Grammar slightly changes because sattsehen is a separable verb. Therefore:
- ich sehe mich satt
- du siehst dich satt
- er/sie/es sieht sich satt
- wir sehen uns satt
- ihr seht euch satt
- sie sehen sich satt
This can be further extended by the form sich an etwas/jemand sattsehen (to be satisfied watching something/someone). With this, you are able to specify what you are watching. For example:
- ich sehe mich daran satt
- ...
However, for a person this might be:
- ich sehe mich an dir satt
- ich sehe mich an ihr/ihm satt
- ...
Or for a narcissist:
- ich sehe mich an mir satt
The above might be the the reason for your confusion. These sentences look quite similar, but are in fact very different in meaning.
Last but not least, you have a negation with können in your sentence:
- Ich kann mich [...] nicht sattsehen.
This changes the Grammar to the way können works. (sattsehen is no longer separated, as it is not the predicate in this sentence.) Furthermore, the meaning switches from: I'm satisfied watching [...].
to I cannot stop watching [...] (satisfiedly).
add a comment |
What you have there is a classical German construct of sich + verb. That's the reason why it conjugates the way you describe.
Take for example sich + freuen (to be happy):
The forms are:
- ich freue mich
- du freust dich
- er/sie/es freut sich
- wir freuen uns
- ihr freut euch
- sie freuen sich
Similarly, in your sentence the construct is sich + sattsehen (to be satisfied watching). However, the Grammar slightly changes because sattsehen is a separable verb. Therefore:
- ich sehe mich satt
- du siehst dich satt
- er/sie/es sieht sich satt
- wir sehen uns satt
- ihr seht euch satt
- sie sehen sich satt
This can be further extended by the form sich an etwas/jemand sattsehen (to be satisfied watching something/someone). With this, you are able to specify what you are watching. For example:
- ich sehe mich daran satt
- ...
However, for a person this might be:
- ich sehe mich an dir satt
- ich sehe mich an ihr/ihm satt
- ...
Or for a narcissist:
- ich sehe mich an mir satt
The above might be the the reason for your confusion. These sentences look quite similar, but are in fact very different in meaning.
Last but not least, you have a negation with können in your sentence:
- Ich kann mich [...] nicht sattsehen.
This changes the Grammar to the way können works. (sattsehen is no longer separated, as it is not the predicate in this sentence.) Furthermore, the meaning switches from: I'm satisfied watching [...].
to I cannot stop watching [...] (satisfiedly).
What you have there is a classical German construct of sich + verb. That's the reason why it conjugates the way you describe.
Take for example sich + freuen (to be happy):
The forms are:
- ich freue mich
- du freust dich
- er/sie/es freut sich
- wir freuen uns
- ihr freut euch
- sie freuen sich
Similarly, in your sentence the construct is sich + sattsehen (to be satisfied watching). However, the Grammar slightly changes because sattsehen is a separable verb. Therefore:
- ich sehe mich satt
- du siehst dich satt
- er/sie/es sieht sich satt
- wir sehen uns satt
- ihr seht euch satt
- sie sehen sich satt
This can be further extended by the form sich an etwas/jemand sattsehen (to be satisfied watching something/someone). With this, you are able to specify what you are watching. For example:
- ich sehe mich daran satt
- ...
However, for a person this might be:
- ich sehe mich an dir satt
- ich sehe mich an ihr/ihm satt
- ...
Or for a narcissist:
- ich sehe mich an mir satt
The above might be the the reason for your confusion. These sentences look quite similar, but are in fact very different in meaning.
Last but not least, you have a negation with können in your sentence:
- Ich kann mich [...] nicht sattsehen.
This changes the Grammar to the way können works. (sattsehen is no longer separated, as it is not the predicate in this sentence.) Furthermore, the meaning switches from: I'm satisfied watching [...].
to I cannot stop watching [...] (satisfiedly).
edited Jul 5 at 7:45
answered Jul 5 at 7:38
jan.sendejan.sende
1214 bronze badges
1214 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
A nice way to look at it is that "sattsehen" doesn't so much come from "sehen" but is more related to "gewöhnen". When you get used to the sight of something extraordinary, you can say this: "Ich habe mich daran gewöhnt, es zu sehen." Or you can say the following: "Ich habe mich daran sattgesehen."
You probably shouldn't look for logical consistency in any human language, after all, we've failed to describe them mathematically, no matter which brilliant minds tried just that. It's the same in English. The only thing we can do is make it easier for ourselves to remember the quirks.
add a comment |
A nice way to look at it is that "sattsehen" doesn't so much come from "sehen" but is more related to "gewöhnen". When you get used to the sight of something extraordinary, you can say this: "Ich habe mich daran gewöhnt, es zu sehen." Or you can say the following: "Ich habe mich daran sattgesehen."
You probably shouldn't look for logical consistency in any human language, after all, we've failed to describe them mathematically, no matter which brilliant minds tried just that. It's the same in English. The only thing we can do is make it easier for ourselves to remember the quirks.
add a comment |
A nice way to look at it is that "sattsehen" doesn't so much come from "sehen" but is more related to "gewöhnen". When you get used to the sight of something extraordinary, you can say this: "Ich habe mich daran gewöhnt, es zu sehen." Or you can say the following: "Ich habe mich daran sattgesehen."
You probably shouldn't look for logical consistency in any human language, after all, we've failed to describe them mathematically, no matter which brilliant minds tried just that. It's the same in English. The only thing we can do is make it easier for ourselves to remember the quirks.
A nice way to look at it is that "sattsehen" doesn't so much come from "sehen" but is more related to "gewöhnen". When you get used to the sight of something extraordinary, you can say this: "Ich habe mich daran gewöhnt, es zu sehen." Or you can say the following: "Ich habe mich daran sattgesehen."
You probably shouldn't look for logical consistency in any human language, after all, we've failed to describe them mathematically, no matter which brilliant minds tried just that. It's the same in English. The only thing we can do is make it easier for ourselves to remember the quirks.
answered Jul 4 at 21:00
maxnordemaxnorde
111 bronze badge
111 bronze badge
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fgerman.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f53045%2fwhy-does-sattsehen-take-accusative-mich-not-dative-mir-even-though-it-is%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
5
Searching a "why" answer for syntax phenomena is usually rather pointless. There is no actual logic behind it. Just accept that the expression is as it is.
– Christian Geiselmann
Jul 4 at 9:27