Du weißt, dass er für das bestraft wird, was er dir angetan hat

[Alan Evangelista]

Hi, guys!

I am a little confused about using a demonstrative pronoun as a placeholder for a following clause. Example:

Du weißt, dass er für das bestraft wird, was er dir angetan hat
= You know that he will be punished for what he has done to you.

I thought that I should use "dafür" instead of "für das" as placeholder here. Could I use the former instead of latter here? Would the meaning be different?

Thanks in advance!

 

[elroy]

No, you can't use "dafür."

"das, was er angetan hat" is a single unit. You can't split off the "das," change it to "da-", and add it to "für."

 

[Alan Evangelista]

No, you can't use "dafür."

"das, was er angetan hat" is a single unit. You can't split off the "das," change it to "da-", and add it to "für."

It seems to me this is not specific to this verb, but to the "(preposition of a prepositional complement) ..., was ...." structure. Is that right?

Another similar example with "entscheiden":

Sie haben sich für das entschieden, was den meisten Menschen zugute kommt.

 

[elroy]

It seems to me this is not specific to this verb

Right.

 

[Perseas]

An alternative word order perhaps: "Du weißt, dass er für das, was er dir angetan hat, bestraft wird.

 

[berndf]

No, you can't use "dafür."

"das, was er angetan hat" is a single unit. You can't split off the "das," change it to "da-", and add it to "für."

I am not sure this is right. I would also prefer für das, was... over dafür, was... but you definitely hear both. Here is an example for the latter: Es würden sich mittlerweile, so Kenny Werner, mehr Leute dafür interessieren, was er schreibe, denn dafür, was er spiele. In my ears it doesn't sounds wrong.

 

[elroy]

That example feels different to me. It feels like “they were interested in what-he-wrote” as opposed to “they were interested in “that which he wrote.”

In your example, the object is “was er schreibe” and “da-” is only there to “introduce” the object.

In the original, the object is “das,” and the “was” clause is an attribute.

There’s a difference at least in nuance, I think.

 

[berndf]

In your example, the object is “was er schreibe” and “da-” is only there to “introduce” the object.

In the sentence in the OP it isn't any different. Das is just a placeholder for was er dir angetan hat.

 

[elroy]

Ich interessiere mich dafür, was er schreibt.
Ich interessiere mich für das, was er schreibt.

Do you find these 100% interchangeable, down to the last nuance?

 

[berndf]

Do you find these 100% interchangeable, down to the last nuance?

No, but they are both correct and share the same meaning. The contraction für das > dafür deemphasises the object. It's your choice if that's what you want to do.

 

[bearded]

In elroy's first example, the subordinate clause sounds almost like an indirect question. Is that possible?
Ich interessiere mich dafür (=ich bin interessiert, zu erfahren,) was er schreibt.

 

[elroy]

My whole point is that they are not (100%) the same, so you can’t substitute one for the other without introducing a change (in nuance or meaning). I don’t think it’s just a matter of emphasis.

Ich interessiere mich dafür, was er schreibt.
This could mean I am interested in the topic of “what he writes.”

Ich interessiere mich für das, was er schreibt.
This means I am interested in his actual writings.

 

[berndf]

My whole point is that they are not (100%) the same

Well, you said

No, you can't use "dafür."

And I didn't think that was right.

Ich interessiere mich dafür, was er schreibt.
This could mean I am interested in the topic of “what he writes.”

If that's what you want to say then you would say
Ich interessiere mich dafür/für das, worüber er schreibt.
I don't see how dafür vs für das matters here.

 

[Perseas]

But why does canoonet say then
"A relative clause does usually not refer to a pronominal adverb but to the corresponding combination of preposition and pronoun." ?

Ich bin mit dem, was du vorschlägst, nicht einverstanden.

instead of:

Ich bin damit, was du vorschlägst, nicht einverstanden.

http://canoo.net/services/OnlineGrammar/Wort/Pronomen/PronAdv/Funktion.html?lang=en
Is 'usually' the key word?

 

[manfy]

In elroy's first example, the subordinate clause sounds almost like an indirect question. Is that possible?
Ich interessiere mich dafür (=ich bin interessiert, zu erfahren,) was er schreibt.

That depends on what dafür you're talking about: dafür or dafür.

dafür (i.e. with stress on 'da') can semantically be identical to 'für das', but dafür (with flat pronunciation or slight stress on 'für') clearly changes the meaning of the sentence.

[cross-posted]

 

[berndf]

But why does canoonet say then
"A relative clause does usually not refer to a pronominal adverb but to the corresponding combination of preposition and pronoun." ?

Ich bin mit dem, was du vorschlägst, nicht einverstanden.

instead of:

Ich bin damit, was du vorschlägst, nicht einverstanden.

http://canoo.net/services/OnlineGrammar/Wort/Pronomen/PronAdv/Funktion.html?lang=en
Is 'usually' the key word?

The keyword is usually. As I said in the beginning, I don't deny that für das is the generally preferred variant.

 

[Perseas]

The keyword is usually. As I said in the beginning, I don't deny that für das is the generally preferred variant.

Alles klar!

 

[JClaudeK]

The keyword is usually.

Aber da steht auch (wie von Perseas schon erwähnt):

Pronominaladverbien sind in der Regel nicht Bezugswort für einen attributiven Relativsatz

An ein Pronominaladverb kann in der Regel kein Relativsatz angeschlossen werden. Statt des Pronominaladverbs steht die Verbindung Präposition + Pronomen.

Ich bin mit dem, was du vorschlägst, nicht einverstanden. - statt: [TD]Ich bin damit, was du vorschlägst, nicht einverstanden. [/TD]

Das bedeutet, dass hier ein Pronominaladverb nicht empfehlenswert ist.

 

[berndf]

Das bedeutet, dass hier ein Pronominaladverb nicht empfehlenswert ist.

Das ist mir deutlich zu apodiktisch formuliert. Im Prinzip sind wir uns aber einig:

As I said in the beginning, I don't deny that für das is the generally preferred variant.

 

[elroy]

Well, you said

Yes, I didn't think "dafür" could work in the original sentence. I still don't think "dafür, was" and "für das, was" are interchangeable.

If that's what you want to say then you would say

Ich interessiere mich nicht dafür, was er schreibt, sondern wo er schreibt.

I don't think it has to be "worüber."

 

[JClaudeK]

I don’t think it’s just a matter of emphasis.

Ich interessiere mich dafür, was er schreibt.
This could mean I am interested in the topic of “what he writes.”

Ich interessiere mich für das, was er schreibt.
This means I am interested in his actual writings.

Ich interessiere mich dafür, was er schreibt.
"I am interested in the topic of “what he writes.” => Es interessiert mich (zu wissen), was er schreibt.

Ich interessiere mich für das, was er schreibt.
This means I am interested in his actual writings.

 

[berndf]

I don't think it has to be "worüber."

If that is what you want to say, yes. Worüber refers to the topic and was about the actual writing.

And even if was is used in a more general way, text and topic, I can't see how für das vs. dafür has anything to do with it.

 

[elroy]

I think you misunderstood my post.

the topic of “what he writes.”

I meant “what he writes” as a topic (the topic of interest), not the topic(s) that he writes about.

 

[berndf]

I think you misunderstood my post. I meant “what he writes” as a topic (the topic of interest), not the topic(s) that he writes about.

I see. Let me think. You might have a point.

 

[berndf]

I see. Let me think. You might have a point.

Ich interessiere mich dafür, was du schreibst. = I am interested in what you are writing because it is you who is writing it.
Ich interessiere mich für das, was du schreibst. = I am interested in what you are writing because it happens to be a topic I take interest in as well.

As a tendency, yes. But it is not a distinction that doesn't jump into by face as a native speaker. So, I don't know how much I see that distinction now because you talked about or because it is really carries that message.

 

[JClaudeK]

I meant “what he writes” as a topic (the topic of interest), not the topic(s) that he writes about.

That's what I did understand.
=>

Ich interessiere mich dafür, was er schreibt.
I am interested in the topic of “what he writes.” → Es interessiert mich (zu wissen), was er schreibt. (#21)

Crossed with #25

 

[berndf]

Ich interessiere mich nicht dafür, was er schreibt, sondern wo er schreibt.

Wo er schreibt?

No, neither of these sentences have anything to do with the localtion where the writing takes place.

 

[elroy]

That was a new example I gave. It wasn't meant to match any other sentence in terms of content.

 

[berndf]

I see. You could equally write
Ich interessiere mich nicht für das, was er schreibt, sondern wo er as tut.

I prefer your version but I can't see a semantic difference of any consequence. So, it is more a matter of tendency and style than a robust semantic distinction.