🌟 Expert question: Type of subordinate clause?
Hello,
I noticed this sentence:
"I wonder how many times you want to tell that joke."
The actual task was to place a comma, and I did that. I also wanted to specify the type of subordinate clause.
"Object sentence" came to mind. I wanted to be sure, so I asked if that was correct.
My German teacher says it's an interrogative sentence, acting as an object clause. He also cited specific sources.
Is this all correct? Is there anything I need to add, or is it incorrect? Can you help me?
Thank you very much for any answers! 🙂
(2 rating, 2 votes, rated)You need to be a registered member to rate this.
Loading...
1. Auxiliary rate as an indirect interrogative rate (= in direct question, therefore no question mark)
had already shown how the relationship of the indirect question to the direct ftage looks.
So your side set is a narrated (= indirect) question:
What did I ask? -> … you often want to tell this joke.
“how” here refers only to “often”, ie only to the number of repetitions and otherwise has no function.
2.) To species of the subset:
There is the same answer to a question of a different category:
Who or what I wonder?: I wonder -> … how often you want to tell this joke.
The entire auxiliary set is therefore in the battery and thus sets an Object set in.
1) or 2)?
What do you ask? 1 = 2, the interrogative set is an object set
And are all interrogative sets then usually object sets?
Is usually each interrogative set an object set?
direct question set
indirect question
In the source "like" is not named. So: Is it an object set? Me and Teacher: "Yes!" But is that right? Interrogative set or object set? Or both?
Question set = Interrogative set
There is no "either interrogative set or object set". Your complete set is an indirect interrogative set and the supplement (after the comma) is an object set.
That's all in your hand. My nickname is known, but not yours.
If you admit that you have expressed yourself incomprehensible terms, it can only be the answers.
And that you're not trying to explain this to people on a good question is a pity. Why are you even here? Apparently you didn't understand the concept of good question…
Maybe it can be because you don't understand it yourself and want to give everything to answer my question.
Why are you here as an answerer? Good question is a question platform where many questions are asked. You can't complain about many questions from a user. Angry?
I never want to meet such an impatient answer. Not even a trace of respect can be found.
The fact that you don't call your name speaks for yourself.
Take a look.
I can't do that if you were unable to understand my original answer based on the example sentences. I am also disgusting, which is not to be understood (being) in the following detailed explanation of the interrogative rate (information questions, decision-making).
It was stupid of me that I spent my time even more. But this is how it is now with some questioners on GF. The fact that you don't call your nickname actually speaks for itself.
Finally. You could also express it as I did. I didn't find your explanations very nice, somewhat misunderstood and at the end also quite evil, but still thank you.
Yeeeeees.
I mean this.
OK. If I understood you correctly:
Interrogative rate = question rate.
This is an indirect question set/indirect interrogative set (= ancillary) and this ancillary is initiated by a main set.
This auxiliary set is also an object set (= logical).
Right?
If you're so misunderstood…
You, honestly, I don't want to see what you wrote somewhere anymore. At some point, I always end up with a topic where one repeats and repeats and …
I'm sorry.
So the upper part of my previous answer is correct?
I may have said that misunderstood.
OK. If I understood you correctly:
Interrogative rate = question rate.
This is an indirect question set/indirect interrogative set (= ancillary) and this ancillary is initiated by a main set.
This auxiliary set is also an object set (= logical).
Right?
But why did you write: Your complete set is an indirect interrogative set.
And after that: An indirect question set/an indirect interrogative set is always a supplement.
I've told you several times that Interrogative set Question means no more and no less.
An indirect question rate/an indirect interrogative rate is always a secondary rate, since it is a Main sentence is initiated:
The above indirect interrogative sets are object sets, because they have the meaning of Object s:
And why is there no "either an interrogative set or object set" here if both the indirect question set and the object set can act as an auxiliary set? And does “interrogative rate” not mean “indirect question rate”?
The Interrogative set (= Question sentence) can be a main set or an auxiliary set.
You need to distinguish between
The interrogative rate is a sideline, and it actually begins after the comma, as far as I know. That's the same everywhere. For example, the Duden: