Talk:Der Dativ ist dem Genitiv sein Tod

Meaning of title
The section "Meaning of title" has this sentence: For example, instead of saying das Buch des Mannes (the man’s book), one says dem Mann sein Buch ([to] the man his book). The fact is that German articles often translate to "the" in the corresponding English sentence but effect the word order of the corresponding nouns. Other times it is necessary to add a preposition in the translation, or take out a word completely. Does a "literal" translation need to have the same number of words? For example, is Das is mir egal "literally" That is [to] me indifferent, or does it translate to I don't care. I don't agree that dem Mann sein Buch translates to [to] the man his book. That would be like translating das Buch des Manes to the book [of] the man. It's hard enough translating correct German to English. dem Mann sein Buch either doesn't translate because it is not correct or understandable, or it translates to the man's book. Similarly, Der Dativ ist dem Genitiv sein Tod either has no translation (I'm learning German and still can't understand how it has meaning.) because it is not semantically understandable, or it is understandable and thus has the translation the dative is the genitive’s death (or the dative is the death of the genitive). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.246.174.182 (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither am I a professional translator nor am I a native English speaker. However, I believe translating wrong phrases is worth a try. Sure you would usually translate Das ist mir egal as I don't care and Das ist mir Schnuppe maybe as I don't give a damn.
 * But since the errors are intended, they should be taken into account in the translated phrase. How else would you translate the whole idea instead of just the words? I think that "the man his book" does include the necessary subtlety. You can guess what it means and if you hear or read it often enough, you will start accepting it as a common way of saying "the man's book". As it is also explained in the article its section The title its meaning, the book its title uses the colloquial way of expressing possession. It has exactly the same meaning as the formally correct term.--188.107.226.104 (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of German is imperfect, but it looks to me as if the phrase "dem Mann sein Buch" as the subject of a sentence is non-standard, but in the sentence "Der Dativ ist dem Genetiv sein Tod", the phrase "dem Genetiv" is simply an ordinary indirect object, so this is a standard alternative to "Der Dativ ist der Tod des Genetivs". Am I missing something here? Michael Hardy (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not about subjects and objects, it's about case inflection: The dative causes the death of the genitive, which is actually in genitive case: "Der Tod des Genitivs" or "des Genitivs Tod". In contrast, "dem Genitiv" is in dative case. You would correctly use it in a phrase like "Der Dativ ist dem Genitiv ein Dorn im Auge". --Zahnradzacken (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me the title is supposed to be an ironic self-illustration, expressing the topic using the dative where the genitive would have been more natural. The English translation shouldn't revert that, or it misses the point. "The dative is death to the genitive" rather than "of the genitive" or "genitive's death" 130.133.86.231 (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Unreferenced?
Why has the article been marked as unreferenced? The books are the main source and they are mentioned at the bottom.--Zahnradzacken (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it only references primary sources. See WP:RS and WP:REF. Mike  moral  ♪♫  20:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Apart from that it's not neutral. Compare the reception block to the German one: Zwiebelfisch (Kolumne). -- seth (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Relation to English "his genitive"
The article says

"This is similar to the his genitive phenomenon that once occurred in English, which nonetheless arose from a misunderstanding of the etymological origin of possessive /-s/ in English and is therefore linguistically unrelated to the German phenomenon discussed here."

But the referenced article on his genitive contains no claim that this phenomenon in English arose from a misunderstanding, and cites similar constructions in other Germanic languages with no indication that they are linguistically unrelated. I think these uncited claims should be removed (or if there are citations for them, they should be made and cited on the his genitive page", and this should just read "this is similar to the his genitive phenomenon in English" and just leave it at that. Andylatto (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Import some of the critical reception from german article
Hey, this article could do with some of the commentary (linguistic that is) on the book being added / transferred from the german language article. I know, I know, don't request, do yourself - maybe I will :D. 37.209.42.230 (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Other books on same subject with same author, but different title
The German Wikipedia article (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwiebelfisch_(Kolumne)) mentions three books which are virtually part of the series (same author, and claims to be similar content) but have different titles. Suggestions on handling these books? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.27.244 (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)