does anyone know anything about german syntactic rules?
449434
I know a lot about them--what did you want to know?  German is actually considered mixed SVO/SOV since all dependent clauses have the verb moved to the end.  A very good book on German syntax comparing it to English is "A Comparative Typology of English and German" by John A. Hawkins, 1986, University of Texas Press.  There may be something more recent, but this is the book we used in my graduate German Syntax class at UT in 1992.
1133588
try going to http://www.dictionary.com and click on the "translator" link\nthats what i did to translate german-english though some of it gets mixed up
160742
Sie koennen, aber ich denke Sie nicht viele Antworten empfangen.\n\nI hope that I got that right. Mein deutsch ist nicht mehr gut.
1117325
http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsARelativeClause.htm
754293
"Editing this article is very easy."\n\nWithin the clause "Editing this article," the word "Editing" behaves as a verb; in particular the phrase "this article" is the object of that verb. But the whole clause "Editing this article" acts as a noun within the sentence as a whole; it is the subject of the verb "is".\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund\n\n\nJumping up and down will not get you an answer any faster.  Jumping up and down.  \n\nSee how, if you replace it with another noun will still make sense?  Like:  Money will not...\n\nIt's different from a participle phrase in how it's used.  A gerund is used as a noun; a participle used as an adjective.
459636
Hallo!\nJa!\n\nhttp://www.deutsch-lernen.com/
1127942
Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit\nfür das deutsche Vaterland!\nDanach lasst uns alle streben\nbrüderlich mit Herz und Hand!\nEinigkeit und Recht und Freiheit\nsind des Glückes Unterpfand;\n|: blüh' im Glanze dieses Glückes,\nblühe, deutsches Vaterland. :| \n\nIm not sure why it was banned....But we Germans had a reason...I think.
731353
Syntax is order, and the relationships between where things are placed.  Read the Wikipedia article for more details.
935313
I found this but it seems to be in German\n\nhttp://www.basf-cc.de/NR/rdonlyres/57B4A1EE-4498-4EA9-8853-217BC12715A6/56922/SDB_D___Lentan_VZ_33_VZ___09_04.pdf
865421
Here's at least a partial explanation.  (It may sound a bit complicated, but if you read closely I'm hopeful it will make sense.)\n\nThe modern forms "make" and "take" are more alike than the original forms of these verbs on which the past tense forms are based.  \n\nFor one thing the original vowel seems to have been different.  It's also possible that the "k" was originally a slightly different sound in each (though I haven't been able to fully check this out).\n\n\nThe pattern of each of these verbs goes WAY back -- in fact, we can see a very similar pattern in other Germanic languages.\n\nTAKE/TOOK/(HAS) TAKEN  -- this follows one of the main patterns for "strong verbs" in Germanic languages, specifically "ablaut pattern 6" in German.    \nhttp://german.about.com/library/verbs/blverb_ablaut.htm\n\nNote that the "irregular verbs" of modern English are very common words, and that a great many of them are formed by the ancient Germanic system of "ablaut", that is, the changes in forms, esp. tense, are marked by changes in the verb's main vowel rather than by the more recent system of adding a special ending like "-ed".\n\n(Note too that the COMMON words of a language are the very sort that tend to be irregular, to retain ancient patterns and resist being forced into a pattern.  Thus the forms of "to be" and the irregular plurals of simple words like man/men, mouse/mice.)\n\nThis particular pattern  (a/o-u/a) is also seen in shake/shook/shaken and forsake/forsook/forsaken\n\n\nMAKE/MADE/(HAS)MADE -- this actually is fairly close to the "normal" pattern we use for most verbs (called "weak verbs").     Note that German has an exactly equivalent form and that it follows a very similar pattern:    machen/machte/gemacht.    If English followed that pattern we would have make/maked/maked (a "regular" pattern, just like bake/baked/(has)baked)\n\nAnd maybe that's what it originally was.  But why did English shift to "MADE" while  German forms still follow the regular pattern here?     \n\nI think it is because German still has a consonant sound that English lost.   If I'm correct, the fact that the German verb has not the K, but the German "CH" sound may be the key, because it is precisely the English equivalent of "ch" (though in English it was "gh") that was lost as Middle English shifted over to Modern English.\n\nSo German pronounces all the letters of "Nacht", but in the English equivalent "night" the "gh" is no longer pronounced.  The same for light (German "Licht"), eight ("acht") and all those interesting "-ough" words in English (e.g., English through, German durch).\n\nNow "make" was not affected by that particular change.  But if my guess is correct, a SIMILAR change took place here -- that is, a soft K sound just before the "'-ed" disappeared, so that, instead of being pronounced "maked" the word ended up as "made", without the K.   But since this was an EARLIER shift than the one that gave us "night" etc. the lost K was omitted from the spelling.\n\n(For what it's worth, CH is the "voiceless velar fricative". K is the "voiceless velar stop".  With a stop, the air is completely stopped from flowing [t/d, k/g, p/b]; with fricatives, the air is only partly stopped [th, [lost!],  f/v])
25707
I have never heard of this rule before, and I'm a grammar teacher, so I don't think anyone will get mad if you violate it.\n\nHowever, the form of your sentence that would fit the rule would be: "Come to Manchester, in which we will meet some interesting people."\n\nIt doesn't really do anything for me, either.
701774
Na das ist ja süß das du erst eine Umfrage startest bevor du in deutsch fragst.\nNa ja die Antworten kennst du ja schon.\n\nViel Glück !!
517665
please write a complete sentence. i´m living here - germany - for a while (with short exceptions my whole life) and this is the first time i read it.\n\nmost similarly is: friktion - friction
1041053
Sorry. I would ask a German.
452853
There are not really "grammar rules" about this, because native speakers don't do it the other way.\n\nHowever, as a linguist, here's how I would analyze this sentence:\n\nI heard [him sing a song].\n\nThe bracketed part of this sentence is kind of like a nonfinite clause.  The subject of this clause is "him", and the verb of this clause is "sing".  Because it's a nonfinite clause, the verb does not need to be conjugated, so it appears in its basic form, "sing".\n\n(By the way, the reason it's "I heard him sing a song" and not "I heard he sing a song" is called Exceptional Case Marking.  Depending on how into linguistics you are, you might want to take a syntax class if you really like stuff like this!)
885692
Ok but next time do your homework alone ;)\n\nDas Hotel war sehr komfortabel und luxuriös. Ich musste ein Zimmer mit meiner Schwester teilen, was nicht nicht so schlimm war, aber manchmal ist sie übergenau. Das Hotel war sauber und glänzte. Das Essen im Hotel mochte ich jedoch nicht, deswegen ging ich in das Restaurant in der Nähe und kaufte Essen von dort. Insgesamt war das Hotel erstklassing und die Leute im Hotel waren wirklich nett und freundlich.\n\n\nOoh, strange words...
537107
http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/articles/article/426348/2805.htm\nhttp://college.hmco.com/english/raimes/digitalkeys/keyshtml/basic_ru.htm