Er möchte die Demokratie mit aufbauen. (function "mit")

Borteg

New Member
Farsi
Hello everybody,
Nach seiner Rückkehr aus dem Exil wechselt Willy Brandt in die deutsche Politik: Er möchte die Demokratie mit aufbauen.
What is the rule of mit in this sentence? Why author uses it? I think, author could make this sentence without mit!?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • manfy

    Senior Member
    German - Austria
    I agree with bearded concerning semantics.
    But this sentence below just looks o_O
    Er möchte die Demokratie mit aufbauen.
    Is this post 2006 spelling?

    Had it been written before 2006, 'mit' would have been a verb-prefix similar to: mithelfen, mitarbeiten, mitlachen, mitfahren, etc. etc.
    The meaning is still the same as bearded showed above: "mit" adds ''together with others'' to the core meaning of the verb.
     

    Demiurg

    Senior Member
    German
    There's usually a slight difference:

    Er möchte mit ins Kino gehen. (adverb + verb gehen)
    Er möchte ins Kino mitgehen. (verb mitgehen)

    But I guess in this case both variants are possible:

    Er möchte die Demokratie mit aufbauen. (adverb + verb aufbauen)
    Er möchte die Demokratie mitaufbauen. (verb mitaufbauen)
     

    manfy

    Senior Member
    German - Austria
    There's usually a slight difference:

    Er möchte mit ins Kino gehen. (adverb + verb gehen)
    Er möchte ins Kino mitgehen. (verb mitgehen)
    :thumbsup: Good example!! An even better one that shows that it is not interchangable semantically:
    Er möchte mit am Tisch sitzen. :tick:
    Er möchte am Tisch mitsitzen. :cross: (semantic nonsense because "mitsitzen" does not exist. [except maybe in the context of a prison sentence...but that's a semantically different type of "sitzen"!])

    Er möchte die Demokratie mit aufbauen. (adverb + verb aufbauen)
    Er möchte die Demokratie mitaufbauen. (verb mitaufbauen)
    If a difference exists, I can't see it. For me the first sentence makes only sense as a typo. ;)
     

    manfy

    Senior Member
    German - Austria
    Interesting. I feel the "mit aufbauen" as entirely idiomatic.

    For there is a notable difference in stress pattern and I clearly say "mit aufbauen", not "mitaufbauen".
    o_O I may be missing something here, but I really don't get what "mit" as an adverb would do there.
    In the good old verb prefix form:
    "...wollte die Demokratie mitaufbauen."
    The prefix 'mit' is clearly stressed and there is no pause between 'mit' and 'aufbauen'. It's one word.
    The meaning is: ...he wants to help build a democratic system (ie. work together with others who want the same or those who have already started the process)
     

    manfy

    Senior Member
    German - Austria
    However, the title sentence I would pronounce "mit aufbauen". The "mit" is an adverb for me.
    Hmmm...fair enough! Now that I've mulled it over for a while, I can accept your argument. You just want to stress 'auf'.
    Fine, I can handle that.
    But now I'm really interested to see how you're going explain the semantic difference to a non-native speaker. I for one don't get it! :p
     

    manfy

    Senior Member
    German - Austria
    I am not sure what your problem is a verbal prefix is nothing else than a clitic adverb. And here it is not clitic, i.e. it is a normal adverb.
    Hmm...but the meaning of the adverb version escapes me. Completely!

    I'm trying to rationalize it with similar forms like:

    Wir sollten uns dazusetzen. -> We should join them.
    Wir sollten uns dazu setzen. -> We should sit down for that.

    Wir sollten das zusammenbauen. -> We should put it together.
    Wir sollten das zusammen bauen. -> We should build that together.

    Wir sollten das mitaufbauen. -> We should help build it.
    Wir sollten das mit aufbauen. -> o_O Mit was aufbauen?? (bzw. womit) :confused:
     

    manfy

    Senior Member
    German - Austria
    "Mit was". Du versuchst mit wieder als Präposition und nicht als Adverb zu interpretieren. Das Adverb bedeutet zusammen mit anderen/anderem; als Teil eines Größeren und modifiziert direkt die Satzaussage (das Prädikat).
    If I put in lots of mental effort I seem to sense some discernible difference in phrases like mit am Erfolg bauen vs am Erfolg mitbauen. But the difference between mitaufbauen and mit aufbauen seems so negligible that it's hardly worth the while to start thinking about the grammar behind it...

    Maybe I've been away for too long. :(
     

    berndf

    Moderator
    German (Germany)
    But the difference between mitaufbauen and mit aufbauen seems so negligible that it's hardly worth the while to start thinking about the grammar behind it...
    The difference is small. The only difference is that in one version the adverb is clitic and in the other it is not. In spoken language there is a difference in stress.

    As I said before:
    a verbal prefix is nothing else than a clitic adverb.
     
    Last edited:

    διαφορετικός

    Senior Member
    Swiss German - Switzerland
    I think "mitaufbauen" and "mitsitzen" are not German words, they do not exist.
    Maybe I exaggerated a bit here.

    But maybe it has to do with the following remark:
    Had it been written before 2006, 'mit' would have been a verb-prefix similar to: mithelfen, mitarbeiten, mitlachen, mitfahren, etc.
    What relevant rule was introduced in 2006?

    By the way, isn't it possible to pronounce "mit aufbauen" the same way as "mitaufbauen"? (Concerning stress and pause.)
     

    manfy

    Senior Member
    German - Austria
    What relevant rule was introduced in 2006?
    Hmm, good question. As you probably know, as native speakers we don't really learn those rules. The only rule of thumb I remember from my schooldays is:
    pre-1996: If you're in doubt whether an expression is written as one word or as two, compound it. There's a 70% chance that the compounded form is grammatically correct.
    post 1996-2006 (that's what my nieces told me): If you run into the same problem, write the expression as separate words. It'll probably yield better grades.

    The pre-1996 rule worked well for me. I had near perfect grades. :) My scholastic career ended before 1996, so I didn't really bother about the orthography reform(s) too much.

    By the way, isn't it possible to pronounce "mit aufbauen" the same way as "mitaufbauen"? (Concerning stress and pause.)
    Yes, I probably would. But I have to admit that "mitaufbauen" kind of urges me to put the stress on 'mit' and in "mit aufbauen", I'm inclined to put the stress on "auf".
     

    berndf

    Moderator
    German (Germany)
    Hmm, good question. As you probably know, as native speakers we don't really learn those rules. The only rule of thumb I remember from my schooldays is:
    pre-1996: If you're in doubt whether an expression is written as one word or as two, compound it. There's a 70% chance that the compounded form is grammatically correct.
    post 1996-2006 (that's what my nieces told me): If you run into the same problem, write the expression as separate words. It'll probably yield better grades.

    The pre-1996 rule worked well for me. I had near perfect grades. :) My scholastic career ended before 1996, so I didn't really bother about the orthography reform(s) too much.


    Yes, I probably would. But I have to admit that "mitaufbauen" kind of urges me to put the stress on 'mit' and in "mit aufbauen", I'm inclined to put the stress on "auf".
    I find it generally problematic to use spelling rules in grammar arguments. Spelling rules after all are just arbitrary conventions to try to represent the structure of words and sentences as accurately as possible but they remain exactly that: arbitrary conventions.

    It makes sense to me to use grammar arguments in discussions for defining spelling rules but not the other way round.
     

    διαφορετικός

    Senior Member
    Swiss German - Switzerland
    I wanted to know why I thought that "mitaufbauen" does not exist (but "mit aufbauen" does, of course!). The tendency to avoid compound words since 2006 might have caused that thought of mine. Frequent compound verbs like "mithelfen" will still be allowed, and the ones with special meanings like "mitmischen" as well. "Mitaufbauen" does not belong to these categories.
     

    berndf

    Moderator
    German (Germany)
    If it existed, how should it be 'separated'? etwa Was baust du mitauf ?...
    If it existed I would write:
    Ich habe es mitaufgebaut.
    Ich baute es mit auf.

    But I doubt there are any separable double prefix verbs, so there won't be a paradigm; at least I can't come up with any example. There are a few non-separable double prefix verbs like beanstanden.

    PS: Correction: There are a few, like hervorheben. Here, hervor acts as a single adverb and hervorheben is, hence, separated as you suggested, i.e.: Ich hob es hervor. But I doubt a hypothetical verb mitaufbauen would fall under the same category.
     
    Last edited:

    manfy

    Senior Member
    German - Austria
    In der Sprache gibt es nichts, was es nicht gibt.

    I found a good answer on stackexchange with some more examples and I fully agree with that answer.
    Particularly also because it debunks the idea that this word does not exist - it does!
    It is well formed and semantically sound -- and it is still in use and shows up in published literature in 2019: <Google Ngram>

    Ultimately, I think I go with Churchill on this:
    This is the kind of arrant pedantry, up with which I will not put.
    Or in German: ..., bei der ich nicht mit mache und die ich nicht mit ver antworte. o_O;)
     

    anahiseri

    Senior Member
    Spanish (Spain) and German (Germany)
    I don't have time to read all the posts, so please excuse me if I'm repeating what somebody said. I'm not very familiar with the post-2006 - spelling rules, but I'm persuaded that
    Er möchte die Demokratie mit aufbauen.
    is correct, idiomatic and easy to understand - He wants to take part / contribute / participate in building a democracy.
    Without the word "mit",
    Er möchte die Demokratie aufbauen.
    Sounds strange. It means "He wants to build a democracy" (alone, by himself!) That's not something a reasonable politician would say.
     

    anahiseri

    Senior Member
    Spanish (Spain) and German (Germany)
    I don't think it's very important, but anyway:
    Here, mit is an adverb (not a preposition), and it looks nicer if it's spelt separately. It's difficult to translate the word. It's certainly not with, because with is a preposition. It's nearer to together / in company.
     

    manfy

    Senior Member
    German - Austria
    ... and it looks nicer if it's spelt separately. [...]
    :D I like that explanation.

    But I couldn't give it a rest since several people suggested that my preferred form "mitaufbauen" is not an acceptable word.
    Siehe da - Duden did in fact come up with an explanation:
    Als (getrennt geschriebenes) Adverb drückt „mit“ die vorübergehende Beteiligung oder den Gedanken des Anschlusses aus (so viel wie „auch“), z. B.:
    • mit nach oben gehen
    Mit dem Verb zusammengeschrieben wird „mit“, wenn es eine dauernde Vereinigung oder Teilnahme ausdrückt:
    • vgl. mitarbeiten, mitbringen, mitfahren, mitreißen, mitteilen usw.
    Im Zweifelsfall sind beide Schreibweisen zulässig:
    "An den Haaren herbeigezogen" comes to mind but at least they found the time to find something.

    And it proves that "mitaufbauen" exists.
    QED :)
     

    berndf

    Moderator
    German (Germany)
    And it proves that "mitaufbauen" exists.
    It surely does not. It only means that (separable) verbs with prefix mit- exist at all. This is not a productive rule, i.e. it does not not mean that you can stick mit- in fronts of whatever verb you like and derive a new verb. All of the verbs given as examples are lexically distinct verbs with their own lemata in the dictionary.

    mitarbeiten
    mitbringen
    mitfahren
    mitreißen
    mitteilen

    But no
    https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/mitaufbauen (Fehler 404 – Seite nicht gefunden)
     

    elroy

    Imperfect mod
    US English, Palestinian Arabic bilingual
    For me the nuance would be:

    mit aufbauen: join others in performing / work with others to perform the action of “aufbauen”

    mitaufbauen: perform the action of participating in the process of “aufbauen”

    A perhaps comparable case: I’m never sure if I should write “mit einbeziehen” or “miteinbeziehen.” :confused:
     

    berndf

    Moderator
    German (Germany)
    I don't see that as a binding proof.
    Of course not. It was an illustration. The point is that your "QED" is wrong. Mitaufbauen is not a "Zweifelsfall". Your quote does not imply it must exist. And, even if Duden is missing a lemma here, other dictionaries have it (DWDS – Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache). Plus verantworten is a non-separable verb. I would still be very surprised if you could find a separable verb with a mit- as an additional and independent prefix.
     
    Last edited:

    berndf

    Moderator
    German (Germany)
    A perhaps comparable case: I’m never sure if I should write “mit einbeziehen” or “miteinbeziehen.”
    There is an audible difference that corresponds the these spellings. Try to say it out loud and watch what your intuition tells you. I am very confident you will come to the right conclusion. ;)
     

    Borteg

    New Member
    Farsi
    I agree with bearded concerning semantics.
    But this sentence below just looks o_O

    Is this post 2006 spelling?

    Had it been written before 2006, 'mit' would have been a verb-prefix similar to: mithelfen, mitarbeiten, mitlachen, mitfahren, etc. etc.
    The meaning is still the same as bearded showed above: "mit" adds ''together with others'' to the core meaning of the verb.
    I think, the book had been written after 2006. Menschen B1.2
     

    anahiseri

    Senior Member
    Spanish (Spain) and German (Germany)
    For me the nuance would be:

    mit aufbauen: join others in performing / work with others to perform the action of “aufbauen”

    mitaufbauen: perform the action of participating in the process of “aufbauen”
    For me the nuance is so subtle that I can't see it.
     

    Schlabberlatz

    Senior Member
    German - Germany
    Er möchte mit ins Kino gehen. (adverb + verb gehen)
    Er möchte ins Kino mitgehen. (verb mitgehen)
    I fail to see a real difference there. The underlying verb in the first sentence is still "mitgehen". You can see that when you leave out "ins Kino" in that sentence. What you get is "Er möchte mitgehen", not "Er möchte mit gehen" … cf.:
    There is an audible difference that corresponds the these spellings. Try to say it out loud and watch what your intuition tells you. I am very confident you will come to the right conclusion. ;)
    :arrow:
    mit aufbauen :tick:
    :cross: mitaufbauen :cross:

    If it existed, how should it be 'separated'? etwa Was baust du mitauf ?...
    :thumbsup:

    Right, converting a sentence into a question is useful if you want to demonstrate something, see here:
    Warum kommst du heute Abend nicht mit in die Disko?
    … kann man so umformen:
    Warum kommst du heute Abend nicht mit, und zwar in die Disko?
    … aber nicht so:
    Warum kommst du heute Abend nicht, und zwar mit in die Disko?

    Auch hier sieht man wieder: Das ›mit‹ gehört zu ›kommen‹.
    Let’s do the same with the examples above:
    Warum gehst du nicht mit, wir wollen ins Kino :tick:
    Warum gehst du nicht, wir wollen mit ins Kino :cross:

    :thumbsup: Good example!! An even better one that shows that it is not interchangable semantically:
    Er möchte mit am Tisch sitzen. :tick:
    Er möchte am Tisch mitsitzen. :cross: (semantic nonsense because "mitsitzen" does not exist.
    Er möchte am Tisch sitzen, und zwar mit uns :tick: (underlying verb: "sitzen")
    Er möchte am Tisch mitsitzen :cross:
    Er möchte die Demokratie aufbauen, und zwar mit uns :tick: (underlying verb: "aufbauen")
    Er möchte die Demokratie mitaufbauen :cross:
     
    Top