Du hast (sogar) nicht mal dein Essen angerührt, wieso bist du satt?

[Caioveloso]

Moin,

"Du hast (sogar) nicht mal dein Essen ausgerührt, wieso bist du satt?"

Does it make sense to add "sogar" here? if so, how does it affect the meaning of the sentence? does the additional word make the sentence more or less formal?

 

[elroy]

Does it make sense to add "sogar" here?

No. “nicht mal” already means “not even.” You can’t add another “even.”

 

[διαφορετικός]

By the way, "ausgerührt" is wrong, "angerührt" would be right.

 

[elroy]

Or "angefasst."

 

[Hutschi]

"Du hast (sogar) nicht mal dein Essen angerührt, wieso bist du satt?"

"Sogar" is mostly used with positive verbs:
"Du hast sogar alles aufgegessen, wieso bist du (da) noch nicht satt?"

Positive and negative, you can use "ja", "doch", and maybe others:

"Du hast ja dein Essen nicht mal angerührt, wieso bist du satt?/..., wie kannst du da satt sein?"
"Ja" is spoken short, it is not "ja=yes".

"Du hast doch dein Essen nicht mal angerührt, wieso bist du satt?/..., wie kannst du da satt sein?"

(I would rearrange it here and use "wie kannst du da satt sein?")
("Da" is also a particle, it emphasizes astonishment)


The sentence is not formal, but if it were normal, particles as "doch", "sogar", "ja" etc. make it less formal. They are often used in dialogues and add emotions or emphasize parts.

Edit: added more examples, improved structure.

 

[Hutschi]

small excurs:
I want to give the default sequence:
"Du hast dein Essen nicht mal angerührt, wieso bist du satt?"
"Nicht mal" basically negates the verb.

In your case "Du hast nicht mal dein Essen angerührt, wieso bist du satt?"
This is usually in contrast to some other parts or emphasizes some other parts, not mentioned here. It does not work good with "wieso bist du satt?"
I give an example:
Du hast gar nichts angerührt. Du hast (sogar) nicht mal dein Essen angerührt. (The second sentence emphasizes the first one). Here "sogar" works, because the second sentence emphasizes the first one.

 

[bearded]

In your case "Du hast nicht mal dein Essen angerührt, wieso bist du satt?"
This is usually in contrast to some other parts or emphasizes some other parts, not mentioned here. It does not work good with "wieso bist du satt?"

I would interpret the last part as
Wieso? Bist du satt?
(defective punctuation/Zeichensetzung mangelhaft).

 

[διαφορετικός]

I would interpret the last part as
Wieso? Bist du satt?
(defective punctuation/Zeichensetzung mangelhaft).

Possible. But I think it's meant differently: "Du hast nicht einmal dein Essen angerührt. Wieso bist du also angeblich trotzdem satt?"

 

[Hutschi]

I would interpret the last part as
Wieso? Bist du satt?
(defective punctuation/Zeichensetzung mangelhaft).

I think, Caioveloso can tell us if the version in #1 is correct, as διαφορετικός and I suppose.

 

[Caioveloso]

I think, Caioveloso can tell us if the version in #1 is correct, as διαφορετικός and I suppose.

It's more like your version, but it's all hypothetical, I made this sentence up to check better ways of conveying its idea and also to learn how to use these "filler" particles you mentioned, which is not an easy task, but yeah, they do make sentences sound more natural, which is my focus. Danke vielmals!

 

[Hutschi]

No. “nicht mal” already means “not even.” You can’t add another “even.”

Hi elroy,
I just read it again. Could you explain it? I do not understand the identity not even - sogar. (Except that bot contradict each other.) "Sogar" is almost the contrary of "not even".

Ich habe nicht mal eine Portion gegessen. vs. Ich habe sogar zwei Portionen gegessen.

 

[Hutschi]

It's more like your version, but it's all hypothetical, I made this sentence up to check better ways of conveying its idea ...

..., wieso bist du satt? = why are you full/fed up/ why aren't you hungry?
Wieso? Bist du satt? = Why? Are you you full/fed up/ why aren't you hungry?

 

[elroy]

“nicht mal” = “not even”
*“sogar nicht mal” = *“even not even”

 

[bearded]

..., wieso bist du satt? = why are you full/fed up/ why aren't you hungry?
Wieso? Bist du satt? = Why? Are you you full/fed up/ why aren't you hungry?

Es geht sowieso auf dasselbe hinaus..

 

[Hutschi]

“nicht mal” = “not even”
*“sogar nicht mal” = *“even not even”

This way "even" is an antagonym (Januswort).
It means itself and its contrary (approximately).

 

[elroy]

This way "even" is an antagonym (Januswort).
It means itself and its contrary (approximately).

How do you figure?

My only point was that “even not even” doesn’t make sense.

I think the confusion is that German uses “sogar” for “even,” but for “not even” it doesn’t use “nicht sogar” but “nicht (ein)mal.” I suspect @Caioveloso wasn’t aware of this German peculiarity and didn’t realize the “even” meaning was already conveyed through the use of “mal,” and that that’s why they wanted to add “sogar.”

 

[bearded]

this German peculiarity

( actually not only German: cf. Italian perfino = even/sogar, neppure = not even/nicht mal ).
But I agree that Caioveloso presumably didn't know the meaning of ''nicht mal''.

 

[elroy]

Spanish is like German and Italian: “hasta/incluso” vs. “ni siquiera.” But French is like English: “même” vs. “même pas.” I don’t know about Portuguese, @Caioveloso’s native language.

 

[Hutschi]

My only point was that “even not even” doesn’t make sense.

I see. I misunderstood.

In German:
"sogar nicht mal" can make sense if the context fits. This is not the case in the example in #1.

"Du hast sogar nicht mal dein Essen angerührt, wieso bist du satt?"
(This is usually semantically problematic, but can be correct. Du hast dein Essen nicht nur kritisiert, du hast es sogar nicht mal angerührt, ...")


"Du hast nicht nur nichts gegessen, du hast das Essen nicht mal angesehen."

 

[JClaudeK]

does the additional word make the sentence more or less formal?

You can’t add another “even.”

But you can add the Modalpartikel "ja"

"Du hast ja dein Essen nicht mal angerührt, wieso bist du satt?/..., wie kannst du da satt sein?"
"Ja" is spoken short, it is not "ja=yes".

which makes the sentence more idiomatic.

 

[διαφορετικός]

Du hast dein Essen nicht nur kritisiert, du hast es sogar nicht mal angerührt, ...

Yes, it is justified to use "even" twice here ("sogar" + "nicht mal"), because they refer to different units.

(But it would be easier to read as follows: "Du hast dein Essen nicht nur kritisiert, sondern du hast es (auch) nicht mal angerührt.")

 

[Caioveloso]

Spanish is like German and Italian: “hasta/incluso” vs. “ni siquiera.” But French is like English: “même” vs. “même pas.” I don’t know about Portuguese, @Caioveloso’s native language.

In Portuguese we would say "nem sequer", which I guess, is similar to Italian "ni sequiera", but we also say "nem mesmo", "mesmo" resembles "sogar" a bit (they don't always mean the same though), which made me thinks the same structure could exist in German, but as you explained, it doesn't. Everything is clear now, it is better to say only "nicht einmal" in negative sentences.

 

[bearded]

Italian "ni siquiera"

Spanish.

 

[anahiseri]

Or "angefasst."

you can`t use anfassen in this context, when referring to food, that is, as a synonym of "eat" Examples with this verb:
Fass die Tür nicht an, sie ist schmutzig.
Fass mich nicht an!
Er kann den Hund ruhig anfassen.

 

[Hutschi]

you can`t use anfassen in this context, when referring to food, that is, as a synonym of "eat" Examples with this verb:
Fass die Tür nicht an, sie ist schmutzig.
Fass mich nicht an!
Er kann den Hund ruhig anfassen.

Hi anahiseri,

nicht angefasst:
I think you can use it because it is an idiom for "you did not eat it, not even touch it."

This means, it is synonym in the negated form.

At least in my region it is used and idiomatic and I use it myself.

Beispiel:
nicht mal angefasst - Englisch Übersetzung - Deutsch Beispiele | Reverso Context

Du hast dein Essen nicht mal angefasst, deine Kleider sind noch nicht trocken und ich glaube, wir beide wissen, dass du sonst nirgends hinkannst.

In positive form it is another thing.
"Du hast dein Essen angefasst, jetzt musst du auch aufessen."
Here "anfassen" does not have a direct connection to "eating".

 

[elroy]

as a synonym of "eat"

I did not mean to use it as a synonym of “eat.” I meant “touch.”

You haven’t even touched your food.

The “not eating” is implied, since you can’t eat it without touching it.

"essen nicht angefasst" - Google Search

 

[anahiseri]

My explanation was not good. Both anrühren and anfassen can be translated by touch, but in the context of eating, nicht anrühren means not even eat a little bit, not even start eating, not even put your spoon in the soup . For me, anfassen is not idiomatic in this context.- But maybe it depends on the region
I know it's off the topic but I think it's worthwhile mentioning.

 

[JClaudeK]

Both anrühren and anfassen can be translated by touch, but in the context of eating, nicht anrühren means not even eat a little bit

Ja, anrühren (im Zusammenhang mit Essen) wird im übertragenen Sinn gebraucht, anfassen nicht.

Siehe auch:

Redenartenindex
keinen Bissen anrühren - nicht essen

und Duden:

1b)

• von etwas essen, trinken, nehmen, verbrauchen (meist verneint oder eingeschränkt)
  Beispiele
  • das Essen kaum anrühren
  • keine Zigaretten anrühren

 

[elroy]

It obviously is used that way — see the Google results. It may be regional, as @anahiseri says.

 

[JClaudeK]

It may be regional, as @anahiseri says.

May be. I've never come across, so far.

 

[Alemanita]

"essen nicht angefasst" - Google Search

Vieles von dem, was ich auf der ersten Seite von 936 (!) Ergebnissen zu sehen bekam, bedeutete tatsächlich: mit den Händen berührt; in einem Fall fehlte ein Komma (Konnte 2 Wochen so gut wie nix sagen nicht essen nicht angefasst werden) ...

 

[Sowka]

Ja, anrühren (im Zusammenhang mit Essen) wird im übertragenen Sinn gebraucht, anfassen nicht.

Ich schließe mich der Auffassung von @anahiseri @Alemanita und @JClaudeK an: Essen anfassen bedeutet nur, das Essen mit den Händen zu berühren. Und bei vielen Speisen ist das explizit unerwünscht.

"Das Essen nicht anrühren" hingegen bedeutet, dass man nicht einmal den kleinsten Anteil davon isst, ob nun mit Besteck oder ohne.

 

[Hutschi]

Wenn ich Essen nicht anfasse, geht es immer um Essen, dass ich anfassen würde, um es zu essen. Brötchen, Schnitten, Frühstück, Abendbrot.
Suppe würde nicht dazugehören, Roulade auch nicht, als Beispiele.
Es ist immer im Kontext zu sehen.

 

[berndf]

I am late to this discussion. So forgive me should this point already have been raised and should I have missed it:

To me the question doesn't arise because I can't think of any context where
Du hast nicht mal dein Essen angerührt, wieso bist du satt?
Would make sense. I can only think of contexts where one might say:
Du hast dein Essen nicht mal angerührt, wieso bist du satt?

In this case I could imagine an additional sogar:
Du hast nicht nur etwas übrig gelassen, du hast sogar dein Essen nicht mal angerührt, wieso bist du satt?

 

[elroy]

In this case I could imagine an additional sogar:
Du hast nicht nur etwas übrig gelassen, du hast sogar dein Essen nicht mal angerührt, wieso bist du satt?

This is interesting. Maybe it works in German because "sogar" and "nicht mal" are not the same word. In English the sentence would sound totally unidiomatic with "even" twice, so much so that I would consider it wrong:

You didn't just leave some food on your plate, you even didn't even touch your food, how can you be full?

To express the same nuance as in German, I might say (for example):

You didn't just leave some food on your plate, you actually didn't even touch your food, how can you be full?

 

[berndf]

Maybe it works in German because "sogar" and "nicht mal" are not the same word.

This is my assumption, too.

You didn't just leave some food on your plate, you actually didn't even touch your food, how can you be full?

Yes, that makes sense. Like the sogar in my German sentence, this actually ist strictly speaking superfluous; it can nevertheless be useful to reinforce the statement.