subordinate clauses

Twin Peaks dialogue templates, because I love dialogue
  • Albert Rosenfield: Subordinate clause addressing whatever asinine thing was just said by the other character, followed by a long, stylish rapid-fire stream designed to prep the other character for their inevitable annihilation: Three word insult. A rule-of-threes list of things he does not like, do, or care about, preferably alliterative, and always decimating. Dismissal.
  • Gordon Cole: THE SECRET TO GORDON COLE IS SHORT SENTENCES! I MEAN REALLY SHORT! NOW THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THIS IS WHEN YOU'RE ENDING A PARAGRAPH, AND THEN YOU CAN USE TWO CLAUSES!
  • Windom Earle: A quaintly ironic, perhaps even polite black humor observation about the other character's (likely unfortunate) situation, followed by some charming purple prose that would truly be the essence of good manners if he wasn't--shall we say--homicidal. Oh, but Windom loves to ask baiting questions, doesn't he? My, he loves to monologue--preferably about all of the terrible things he's going to do to the other character, but never seems to get around to actually doing! Well, no matter. If he gets too carried away, you can always cut him off with an initially innocent sentence that SUDDENLY BREAKS INTO A HOMICIDAL OUTBURST!!!!
  • Dale Cooper: Character name, followed by an excited, bright-eyed announcement of a new discovery or idea. [Brief pause to consume food object.] An immediate transition into a precise, almost Spock-like dump of obscure information that is unnecessarily detailed and almost totally incomprehensible to the other character. This description can go on for several sentences. In fact, the longer and more technical it is, the better, as the intended effect is for the other character to be in a totally obfuscated daze by the time Cooper is finished. In short: Concise summary. [More consumption of food.] A resolute, serious suggestion for action gleaned from his findings. But first: a non-sequitur framed as an observational question?
  • Diane: Fuck you, Gordon.
DAS VS. DASS

Distinguishing between ‘das’ and 'dass’ is one of the hardest challenges when learning German, and it’s hard even for us native speakers! It’s especially difficult for learners whose native language is English in my opinion, because both usually simply mean 'that’. However, not exactly the same kind of 'that’. In this post I’ll try to show you how to distinguish these two by showing you what I usually do when having to choose between 'das’ and 'dass’.


'Das’

Article
“Das Haus ist gross” “Er geht, das Mädchen folgt ihm”
In these cases, 'das’ is used as an article, however, it can seem a bit tricky after a comma. But when you can match the 'das’ as an article to a noun, always write it with one s.

demonstrative pronoun
“Das ist gar nicht gut” “Sie sagte, das sei normal”
In these cases, 'das’ is a pronoun and the subject of a sentence, so 'das’ can replace a noun and acts on its own. You can always check whether it is a demonstrative pronoun by asking (let’s take the first sentence as an example) “wer/was ist gar nicht gut?” “DAS ist gar nicht gut”. This one is the hardest to spot for me actually but after a while (and after refreshing German pronouns) it gets a lot easier.

relative pronoun
“Das Haus, das einen grossen Garten hat” “Das Kind, das den Nachbaren gebissen hat”
Here 'das’ refers to an object/the subject in the  previous sentence part, in the examples above to “Das Haus” and “Das Kind”. You can check that by substituting 'das’ by 'welches’ i.e. instead of “Das Kind, das den Nachbarn gebissen hat” “Das Kind, welches den Nachbarn gebissen hat”, if that works then you’re dealing with a relative pronoun which is very similar to the English version: “The child who/that has bitten the neighbour”


'Dass’

Conjunction
“Es geht nicht, dass er sie so behandelt” “Dass du mir nicht vertraust, verletzt mich”
'Dass’ is only used in one instance; to link different parts of sentences, so it’s similar to words like 'und’ and 'oder’ but unlike those to which link two main clauses, 'dass’ always links a main clause with an subordinate clause, so unlike 'das’ it does never depend on a noun. Unlike i.e. a relative pronoun, 'dass’ can be shifted within the sentence as a whole, although it always stands at the beginning of the subordinate clause.

Whenever I need to choose between 'das’ and 'dass’ in an essay or such, I try to first go through all the possibilities including a noun (article, relative pronoun, demonstrative pronoun) and if none of these can be applied, I am only left with 'dass’.

And tada: that’s how I try to not get confused with 'das’ and 'dass’, however, I am sure that there are other methods as well which are super helpful :^)

Have a nice weekend, everyone!

I’ll just list ways you can accomplish this [radical revision] when you are working on a poem. Dig up some old ones and see what happens (it’s best to use old ones to start, as you are no longer emotionally attached to them):

1) If someone tells you you have too much in your poem, add more.

2) If someone tells you you have too little in your poem, take out more.

3) Take the last line and make it the first. Rewrite from there, keeping whatever works in what’s already there.

4) Expand your poem: add subordinate clauses using who, when, until, if, while, before, after, as, since, whenever, where, etc.

Also use coordinating conjunctions: and/and/and; or/or/or; but/but/but (think of it as a list that keeps going).

So, for example: “The man, who once loved me, who once told me___________, and __________, and ____________, and ______________…” so you’re pushing the syntax and the comfort of the line/sentence.

Actual listing - must make a qualitative progression (light to dark, big to small, for example); can’t be random. Push the list, see what you come up with.

Repetition - repeat what you just said. Maybe repeat it again.

Contradiction - say the opposite of what you just said.

5) Compress your poem:

Negation: use the word ‘not.’ When you do this you get both the thing named and its absence. You can also use other words that negate - 'un’; 'never’; 'less’; 'without.’

Neologisms: (what I like to refer to as kennings - used in Anglo Saxon poetry): put words together to create a heightened adjective, a metaphor: 'the shutmouth mother,’ 'the sorrowfence.’

Possessives: use possessives: 'how the sun’s poultice draws on my inflammation’ (Plath) or 'the wind’s rebuke’ and 'the leaves’ exhalation’ (Brigit Pegeen Kelly).

Shift the parts of speech: Use a noun as a verb or vice versa. Use an adjective as a verb, etc.

Cut and paste: radically rearrange your poem. Find new combinations!

EXERCISE:

Go over your poem and underline any lines you feel jump out with lots of energy. Pick three of those lines. Make one the first line of a new poem, one a middle line, and one the last line. Now, using some of the above strategies (minimum 3), write a new poem.

—  Catherine Barnett, “Radical Revision”
Speaking & Writing Vocabs

il lessico - lexicon, vocabulary (list of words known by a person), terminology
la terminologia, la nomenclatura - terminology, nomenclature, vocabulary
l’etimologia - etymology
il vocabolario - vocabulary (list of words in one language)
il dizionario - dictionary 
l’alfabeto - alphabet
i vocaboli, le parole, i termini - words, terms
le lettere - letters (alphabet)
i numeri - numbers
la lingua - language
il linguaggio - language / style
la dizione - diction, elocution
la pronuncia - pronunciation, diction
la parlata - way of speaking, idiom, parlance
la scrittura, la calligrafia - writing / calligraphy
il modo di dire - common saying
il proverbio - proverb, saying
il motto, la massima, l’adagio - maxim, motto, principle, aphorism, adage
lo scherzo - prank, joke, dirty trick
la battuta, la freddura - joke, gag, pun
l’idioma - language, dialect
il gergo - slang, lingo
il dialetto (la parlata locale) - dialect, vernacular (local idiom)
l’accento *- accent, stress
la cadenza, l’accento *- inflection, stress, accent

la sintassi - syntax
la morfosintassi - morphosyntax, grammar
la stuttura sintattica - structure (of syntax)
il costrutto - construction, construct, sens (syntactic structure) 
l’ortografia, la scrittura - orthography
il corsivo - cursive (writing)
lo stampatello - block letters (writing)
lo spelling, la compitazione - spelling
la frase, il periodo - phrase, sentence
la proposizione - clause, sentence
il periodo ipotetico - “if sentences”, conditional period
la protasi - subordinate clause in “if sentences”
l’apodosi - main clause in “if sentences”
la (frase) reggente / principale - main clause
la (frase) subordinata - subordinate clause
la morfologia - morphology
il dialogo - dialogue, conversation
il monologo - monologue
il soliloquio, il monologo interiore - soliloquy, interior monologue
il discorso - conversation, speech
la conferenza - lecture, educational speech, conference
il discorso diretto - direct speech
il discorso indiretto - indirect speech
la domanda - question
l’esclamazione - exclamation
la prolissità, essere prolissi - verbosity, prolixity
la sinteticità, essere concisi - conciseness 
il tema, il componimento scritto - essay, composition
la lettera - letter (writing)
la raccomandata - registered mail
la poesia - poem (poetry)
i versi - verses
le rime, le assonanze - rhymes
la figura retorica - figure of speech
la metafora - metaphor / analogy
la retorica - rhetoric

la grammatica - grammar
l’analisi logica - logical analysis, construe
l’analisi grammaticale - grammatical analysis, construe, parse
l’analisi del periodo - period analysis
il verbo - verb
l’ausiliare (verbo) - auxiliary verb
l’apostrofo - apostrophe
l’accento *- accent mark
la coniugazione (verbo) - conjugation
la prima persona plurale (verbo - noi) - 1st plural person (we)
la terza persona singolare (verbo - lei/lui) - 3rd singular person (s/he, it)
il modo (verbo) - mood
il tempo (verbo) - tense
il tempo composto - compound tense
l’articolo determinativo - definite article
l’articolo indeterminativo - indefinite article
l’articolo partitivo - partitive article
il nome **- name, appellative
la declinazione - declension, conjugation
il genere - gender
maschile - masculine
femminile - feminine
il numero - number (sing/plu)
singolare - singular
plurale - plural
il nome proprio **- proper noun/name
il nome comune **- common name, generic name/noun
la congiunzione - conjuction
la preposizione semplice - simple preposition
la preposizione articolata - preposition + article
l’aggettivo - adjective
il grado (aggettivo) - degree
il grado comparativo (aggettivo) - degree of comparison
l’aggettivo qualificativo - qualifier adjective
il diminutivo - diminutive
il vezzeggiativo - nickname, term of endearment
il pronome - pronoun
il soggetto - subject
il sostantivo **- noun
il complemento - complement
il complemento diretto / oggetto - direct object/complement
il complemento indiretto - indirect complement
l’attributo - attribute
le interiezioni - interjection
l’abbreviazione - abbreviation 

la punteggiatura - punctuation
il punto - full stop, period, dot
il punto e virgola - semicolon
i due punti - colon, two points
la virgola - comma
i puntini di sospensione - dots, ellipsis
il punto esclamativo - exclamaton point
il punto di domanda - question mark
la lettera maiuscola - capital letter
le sillabe - syllables
monosillabo - monosyllable
trittongo - triphthong

dividere in sillabe, sillabare - to syllabify
(andare) a capo - to start a new line 
parlare - to speak, to talk, to make a speech
raccontare, narrare - to tell, to narrate
dire, esporre, enunciare - to say, to express
chiacchierare, discorrere - to chat, to converse 
balbettare, tartagliare - to stutter
borbottare, mormorare, biascicare - to mutter
spifferare - to blab, to tell tales
sussurrare, mormorare, bisbigliare - to whisper, to murmur
urlare - shout, scream, cry out
sbandierare, vantarsi - to flaunt, to spread
discutere - discuss 
discutere, litigare - to argue, to disagree, to fight
aprire bocca - open your mouth, speak
scrivere - to write
leggere - to read
comporre - to compose, to arrange

non aprire bocca! / acqua in bocca! - don’t speak!, don’t say anything!
chiudi la bocca! / stai zitto! - shut up! 
Luca mi ha raccontato la tua storia. - Luca told me your story
Ho parlato con Lucia - I spoke with Lucia
La mamma ha detto che non dovremmo non litigare. - Mum said we should not fight.
Con chi ho il piacere di parlare? - With whom I have the pleasure of speaking?
Asino di natura chi non sa leggere la sua scrittura (saying) - literally: dunce by nature s/he who cannot read her/his own writing
Come dice il proverbio …. - As the saying goes…

anonymous asked:

hi can u make a post about the sentence structure of subordinate clauses unless u've done that already

Sure thing! c:

-

Subordinate Clauses in Norwegian

#1. What is a subordinate clause?

A subordinate clause can sometimes be called a dependent clause - simply because they’re not independent sentences. While a main clause makes perfect sense by itself, a subordinate clause is merely a phrase that gives the main clause extra information - and, consequently, it can’t be used as an independent sentence. 

This would be a main clause - a sentence that makes sense by itself:

“He needs to eat.”

This, on the other hand, would be a subordinate clause - a phrase that makes little sense when it’s by itself:

“Because he’s still growing.”

(It doesn’t really make sense by itself, right? Sure, if someone asked you “Why does he need to eat”, then this could be an adequate answer - but the phrase alone doesn’t carry much of a meaning - and unless you’re answering a question, you wouldn’t really say this phrase by itself.)

So, subordinate clauses are phrases that you add to your main clause to give people that tiny bit of additional information, like this:

“He needs to eat, because he’s still growing.”
(Main clause, subordinate clause.)

I know, it might seem like I’m spoon-feeding you this right now, but being able to tell a subordinate clause and the main clause apart is essential when you’re speaking Norwegian - as you’ll see in #4

-

#2 The sentence structure of a Norwegian subordinate clause

Here’s a post about the sentence structure of Norwegian main clauses.

Most of the time, the structure of a subordinate clause and a main clause will be the same - - - except for this:

- A subordinate clause usually starts with a subordinating conjunction (”because”, “when”, “that”)

- When negating subordinate clauses, “ikke” comes before the verb, not after. 

-

#3. Common subordinating conjunctions 

Some of the more common subordinating conjunctions (”subjunksjoner”) in Norwegian would be:

- som (”which/as/that” - as in “the guy that didn’t come….”)
- at (”that” - as in “he said that he couldn’t come…”)
- om (”if”)
- fordi (”because”)
- da (”when” - non-recurring)
- når (”when” - recurring)

*!! - When speaking, it’s sometimes common to omit the subordinating conjunction - because a native Norwegian speaker will automatically be able to tell which part is a subordinate clause - whiiiiich of course makes things a bit trickier for those of you who’re trying to learn Norwegian as a second (or third…or fourth..) language. (but hey, practice makes perfect amirITE–)

Here are some examples that might make things a bit easier to understand:

“Han sa at han kommer. - “He said that he’s coming.” 

“Jeg liker ikke hunder som bjeffer. - “I don’t like dogs that bark.”

“Han sa det da han gikk.- “He said so when he left.”

*!! - keep in mind that sentences starting with normal conjunctions such as “and” or “but” aren’t necessarily subordinate clauses, but two connected main clauses - so these rules won’t apply there.  

-

#4. Negation

Now this is where it really gets tricky. 

You see, a negated main clause in Norwegian will usually have the word “ikke” placed after the verb - however, if there’s a negated subordinate clause in a sentence, “ikke” will be placed before the verb. 

In other words:

“Jeg liker ikke hunder som bjeffer.” - “I don’t like dogs that bark.
(Negated main clause, subordinate clause = “ikke” after “liker”.)

“Jeg liker hunder som ikke bjeffer.“I like dogs that don’t bark.”
(Main clause, negated subordinate clause = “ikke” before “bjeffer”.

Does that make sense? Here’s another example:

“Han er ikke på skolen fordi han er syk.” - “He’s not at school because he’s sick.”

- “Ikke” after “er” because it’s a negated main clause, but not a negated subordinate clause. 

“Han er på skolen fordi han ikke er syk.” - “He’s at school because he’s not sick.”

- “ikke” before “er” because it’s a negated subordinate clause, but not a negated main clause.

-

I really hope that makes sense!! ;;v;;

anonymous asked:

So you got plagiarized! ! BOOHOO!! What's the big deal!! It's not like you poured yourself whole heartedly, wove your soul in your work, shed blood sweat and tears to make magic happen. It's just stuff. So people will send you hearts and hugs and smiles. Be happy , be greatful. You don't need to be outraged. That's wrong. It serves you right you got your work, ur style, ur similiea, metaphors stolen. Why did u share ur work without copy right in public? It's public property now.

Yo, I know you’re dicking around with me, because your sarcasm subverts the shit out of your comment rendering it ingenious in a way. But lemme tell you, I wrote that post when my ass was super sad. Super damn sad. I haven’t been that sad for the longest time when it comes to something unrelated to family/real life personal.

Now my ass is salty as fuck.

BOO-freaking-HOO, right? It’s not a big deal, YEAH? Man, I am so rarely angry here on Tumblr unless I’ve come online and seen some anon bullshit happening, so let me make it crystal clear for you:

Don’t plagiarise.

Don’t plagiarise.

Don’t fucking plagiarise. 

Don’t appropriate dishonestly. Credit when you are inspired by someone. Acknowledge your plot bunnies and specific writing styles if they’re lifted directly from someone else’s fic. Just fucking do it. Otherwise spend just as long as we all do labouring and pouring our hearts and souls into these creations, and come up with your own material. 

It’s that simple.  

I know my fics inside and out. Like the back of my hand. I can recite entire one shots to you off by heart because these fics are manifestations of my blood, sweat and tears. They contain everything I’ve managed to squeeze out of my body and brain. I spend literally all night, not sleeping until early hours in the morning, because I care that much about where I place my verbs and prepositions, and which sentences should be complex with subordinate clauses, and when I need to pull in for tension or pull out for exposition. I know my own writing so well it makes it that much easier to identify the many permutations I see of it when it starts cropping up in other works. 

Don’t be outraged, you say? I am livid. And sad as fuck. To the point that it’s not even about the actual theft anymore, but the fact that I’m now scared this has permanently soured my experience of a fandom I think is cool as hell.

So I’m taking the time to calm my ass down. So I don’t dig an even bigger hole and fill it with words I might regret later. So I can come back and at least express gratitude for the “hearts, hugs, and smiles” people have kindly shared, and figure this shit out.

As of right now though, I’m done.

Have a motherfucking great day, anon. Kiss my salty ass on the way out. 

And for god’s sake: don’t fucking plagiarise.

It really is that simple.

Matrix Clauses

The intro class I TA has now moved on to syntax. Last week I was explaining about the difference between main or matrix clauses and subordinate clauses. For example, in the following sentence:

Neo wondered if he should take the red pill. 

The subordinate clause is “if he should take the red pill”, while the matrix clause is “Neo wondered…”

And then I said something without really thinking about it, but it’s totally true:

“The matrix clause is the clause that all the other clauses plug into.”

anonymous asked:

Hello! I'm wondering how basic grammar in Sumerian works. I don't really know anything about it other than that it's an ergative-absolutive kind of deal? I think? But what sorts of cases are there, and maybe if you have any suggestions about where I might start learning more about the language, I'd love to investigate further myself!

Thanks so much! I know Sumerian resources out there come in two basic types, incredibly dense & confusing or incredibly brief & potentially inaccurate. A great place to start is my youtube videos! I’m hoping that by the time a few more are out they’ll provide a pretty solid primer on Sumerian structure & grammar.

But as a start, the main four things which English (and other European-language) speakers tend to find unusual right away are probably:

  • SOV structure. English (and most European languages) start a sentence with the subject, then the verb, then the object, then various trailing pieces of information — our sentences start strong and often finish weak. Sumerian is, to say the least, not like this. You start with the subject, then cram everything else in (object, obliques, subordinate clauses, etc.) and finally end with the main verb. Yes, every sentence in Sumerian ends with a verb (except for a few one-word sentences like ana? “what?” or inu! “oh no!”) This means that often you have to hang on to the very end of a sentence to get what exactly is going on.
  • Cases rather than prepositions. Sumerian uses almost no prepositions, and instead uses a set of case endings, kind of like an extreme™ version of Latin or ancient Greek. The most important cases to learn are probably (and this is a very simplified version) -a(k) “of”, -a “in/at”, -r(a) “for”, -da “with”, -ta “from”, and -sh(e) “to/towards”. Hopefully videos on these cases will be out soon!
  • Person-nonperson. We’re used to “gender” distinctions in European languages, but they mostly divide between masculine and feminine (think French or Spanish) or sometimes between these two and neuter (think “he, she, it”). Sumerian divides the world instead into two groups, people (including deities, sentient beings, and occasionally representations of people) and everything else. It’s a pretty simple distinction, but one you may have to adjust to.
  • Ergative-absolutive alignment. This is probably the most confusing thing that you encounter upon first learning Sumerian. I’ve got a post explaining the basics of Sumerian alignment here, but in general I recommend not worrying about it too much until you’ve got a better feel for the language. It just means that you should focus on intransitive sentences and ones using the verb to be as your early example sentences.

But before you go, I just want to say — don’t be scared! Most of Sumerian isn’t that difficult, once you adjust to these few things. ^_^

anonymous asked:

Hi Athena 💕 how are you? I wanted to ask if you could please explain the use of "doch" I know it's used to reply the negative form but why do people reply with it? I feel a bit lost 😅 Thank you ❤️

Hi! I’m good, thanks :) 

“Doch” is a fascinating and useful little word - bad news though, the Duden lists 4 official meanings, so let’s get on with the explanation: 

1. dennoch

You can use “doch” as a conjunction for Konzessivnebensätze, in a similar sense to “aber” and “dennoch”. Example: “Ich habe ihn gefragt, doch er hat abgelehnt.” = I asked him but he said no. 

2. connects a causal statement to the sentence

This is probably not used as often, but you could encounter it in written texts. I’d say it’s maybe similar to “schließlich”. You inverse the verb order of a subordinate clause, then put “doch” and then your reason. Example: “Er kaufte ein Buch, wusste er doch, dass sie es mögen würde.” = He bought a book because he knew she would like it. The more common way of saying that in German would be “Er kaufte ein Buch, weil er wusste, dass sie es mögen würde.”

3. a contradiction to a negative statement/question 

the most common usage, maybe. Example: “Du arbeitest nicht.” - “Doch!” = “You don’t work.” - “Yes, I do!” If the question or statement is negative and you answer with “doch”, you’re saying that the negative isn’t true. You can’t use it for positive questions. There are a few tricky examples on what counts as a negative question - for example, “Das ist falsch” isn’t one (doch doesn’t work here), but “Es ist keiner da” is one (if you answer “doch”, there is someone there). I think you’ll get a feeling for it the better you get at German. 

4. reinforces an assumption or verifies an unlikely event 

Used quite often especially in spoken German because it conveys a lot of meaning without many words. You can use “doch” if something happens that you would have considered unlikely before. Example: “Es hat heute morgen doch geregnet” (with the word “doch” stressed) = It rained this morning (even though we didn’t think it would). 

Fun fact: If you take this same sentence and stress “geregnet”, the “doch” would take on the second meaning. It would make sense in a conversation like: “Wart ihr heute auf der Wanderung?” - “Nein, es hat heute morgen doch geregnet.” = Did you go hiking today? - No because it rained this morning. 

There are lots of small phrases like “Also doch!” = I suspected it but didn’t think it would happen but now it did! But don’t worry too much about those, they have very specific meanings that German learners in the beginning stages don’t usually need right away. 


I hope this helped! If you have further questions, don’t hesitate to ask - I love grammar questions and I’ll do my best to explain everything :) 

You should read about how to make a huvudsats (main clause) before proceeding with bisatser (subordinate clauses).

Konjunktioner (conjunctions) are words used to connect groups of words or even to connect satser.
Some common konjunktioner:
En - Sv
and - och
but - men
or - eller
because - för
because (more formal) - ty
therefore - därför
without/but - utan

You can use a konjunktion to connect a group of words.
En: She ate an apple, an orange, and a whole watermelon.
Sv: Hon åt ett äpple, en apelsin, och en hel vattenmelon.

You can also use a konjunktion to connect two or more huvudsatser.
En: She bought a lot of fruit and she ate them all on the same day.
Sv: Hon köpte mycket frukt och hon åt upp dem på samma dag.
Without the konjunktionoch”, these two huvudsatserna can stand alone.
En: She bought a lot of fruit. She ate them all on the same day.
Sv: Hon köpte mycket frukt. Hon åt upp dem på samma dag.

Subjunktioner are used at the beginning of a bisats (subordinate clause). You can do this with other words such as relativa pronomen (relative pronouns) and frågeord (question words). All of these could be called “bisatsinledare” (subordinate clause openers).

Some common bisatsinledare:
En - Sv
that - att
because - eftersom
because (should not use at the beginning of a sentence) - därför att
because - för att
like - som
if - om
then - sedan
before - innan
while - medan
when - när
although - trots att
even if - även om

A bisats cannot stand alone like a huvudsats can. Imagine that the bisatsinledare is glued to the front of the sats.
Huvudsats + Huvudsats:
En: I’ll make the bed and I’ll wash the dishes.
Sv: Jag ska bädda och jag ska diska.
Huvudsats + Bisats:
En: I’ll make the bed, even if I wash the dishes.
Sv: Jag ska bädda även om jag diskar.
The first sentence contains two huvudsatser connected by a konjunktion. The second sentence contains a huvudsats followed by a bisats.

Huvudsats + Huvudsats:
En: I’ll make the bed but I won’t wash the dishes.
Sv: Jag ska bädda men jag ska inte diska.
Huvudsats + Bisats:
En: I’ll make the bed, even if I don’t wash the dishes.
Sv: Jag ska bädda även om jag inte diskar.
In the first sentence, the satsadverbinte” comes after the first verb of the huvudsats (“ska”). But in the bisats, the satsadverb comes before the first verb of the sats. In a huvudsats, it would be “jag diskar inte”, but in a bisats it comes out as “jag inte diskar”. This change with the satsadverb only affects the bisats part of the sentence.
Huvudsats + Huvudsats:
En: I won’t make the bed and I won’t wash the dishes.
Sv: Jag ska inte bädda och jag ska inte diska.
Huvudsats + Bisats:
En: I won’t make the bed even if I don’t wash the dishes.
Sv: Jag ska inte bädda även om jag inte diskar.

Remember that a bisatsinledare is glued to the front of a bisats, so if you were to switch the sats around, the bisatsinledare would be at the front of the entire sentence.
Huvudsats + Huvudsats:
En: I won’t wash the dishes but I’ll make the bed.
Sv: Jag ska inte diska men jag ska bädda.
Bisats + Huvudsats:
En: Even if I don’t wash the dishes, I’ll make the bed.
Sv: Även om jag inte diskar ska jag bädda.
Also notice how the word order of the huvudsats in the second sentence changed. Imagine that the entire bisats is the fundament of the sats. “Verb 1” always comes after the fundament.

To recap, if you memorize which words are bisatsinledare and remember these three points, you should have no problem adding bisatser to your sentences.
1. One bisats cannot stand alone as a sentence.
2. In a bisats, the satsadverb comes before the first verb of the sats.
3. When a bisats is used in front of a huvudsats, it is the fundament.

Bisats + Huvudsats:
En: Although he fed the birds everyday, they never liked him.
Sv: Trots att han matade fåglarna varje dag tykte de aldrig om honom.
Bisats + Huvudsats + Huvudsats:
En: When he came near them, they flew away and they didn’t come back all day.
Sv: När han kom nära dem flög de iväg och de kom inte tillbaka på hela dagen.
Huvudsats + Bisats:
En: He would have been happy if only they had been his friends.
Sv: Han skulle ha varit lycklig om de bara hade blivit hans vänner.
Huvudsats + Bisats + Bisats + Huvudsats:
En: I don’t think that he should feed the birds pizza, like he’s been doing, but instead he should feed them birdseeds.
Sv: Jag tycker inte att han borde mata fåglarna med pizza, som han har gjort, utan han borde mata dem med fågelfrö. 





 

anonymous asked:

Hello again! I have difficulty unferstanding the use of "что́бы", I wonder if you could give me a hand with this problem. Your blog is helping me a lot with my studies! :)

It depends on the exact sentence & context, but in general, it is used as a conjunction.

Subordinating Conjunction

The general definition of the word is “so that” … “in order to”. You use it to answer the question of зачем? For what reason?

As a subordinating conjunction, it connects an independent clause & a dependent clause

There are two main ways for forming sentences with the чтобы conjunction:

Subordinating & main clause have different subjects: Use чтобы + past tense

Я мыла посуду, чтобы мама отдыхала. 
I washed the dishes so that mom would rest.
Я мыла … мама отдыхала = different subjects.  Answers for what purpose did I wash the dishes?

The reason the past tense is used is because the particle бы (found in чтобы)   indicates the conditional mood & as such uses the past tense. 

Subordinating & main clause have the same subject:  Use чтобы + infinitive

Я прочитал книгу, чтобы понять Толстого.
I read the book to understand Tolstoy.
Я прочитал …я понял = same subject. Answers for what purpose the book was read.

Wishes & Commands

Чтобы can also be used to express wishes & commands.

She wants you to call her.
Она хочет, чтобы вы ей позвонили.

Do you want me to leave?
Ты хочешь, чтобы я ушел?

I need you to go to the library
Мне нужно, чтобы ты сходил в библиотеку

Speak slower so that I can understand.
Говорите медленнее, чтобы я поняла.

Differences from что + other forms

The usage of что usually indicates a statement and is used as a coordinating conjunction to mean “that”.

Анна сказала, что Алексей приехал.
Anna said that Alex arrived.
(Indicative statement. Is a fact. Has happened.)

Анна сказала, чтобы Алексей приехал.
Anna told Alex to arrive.
(She wants him to come and has told him to. Will eventually occur.)

As you can see, while they look similar they mean two completely different things and needs context/ speaker’s intention to understand.

You can also see чтобы in these forms:

для того, чтобы: in order that; in order to

Нам нужно больше голосов для того, чтобы победить их. 
We are going to need more voices in order to beat them. 

с тем, чтобы: in order to

Необходимо увеличить объем гуманитарной помощи, с тем чтобы оказать поддержку пострадавшему населению. 
It is necessary to increase humanitarian aid in order to provide relief to the affected populations. 

без того, чтобы не: without

Я не могу смотреть на тебя без того, чтобы не думать о ней. 
I can’t look at you without thinking about her. 

не то чтобы: not that

То есть, не то чтобы я не хотелa.
I mean, not that I wouldn’t want to. 

Basically, you should have some knowledge on the conditional/subjunctive mood and when to use the бы particles to understand all the uses, but I hope this clears up something. There are more uses than this, but they’re quite specific. If anyone wants to add to this, please do :)

Grafikbeschreibung

During the last semester we had to write a description of a graph about elections. I’ve gathered few useful phrases that can be used exactly for graph description:

Die vorliegende Grafik zeigt … ( + Nomen im A) - The present graphic shows … (+ Noun in accusativ)

Die vorliegende Grafik zeigt,… ( + Nebensatz) - The present graphic shows … ( + subordinate clause)

Das Diagramm stellt dar,… ( + Nebensatz) - The diagram shows … ( + subordinate clause)

Das Schaubild trägt den Titel “…” - The chart is titled “…”

Die Daten sind in Prozent/Millionen/Litern/… angegeben.  - The data is expressed in percent/millions/liters.

Die Daten beziehen sich auf das Jahr …/ die Jahre … The data refers to the year …/the years …

Als Quelle ist “…”genannt. - The source is “…”

Aus der Grafik geht hervor, dass … The graphic shows, that

Wie die Daten zeigen (+Hauptsatz = …, + kV + S)  - As the data shows

Der Grafik zufolge (+ kV + S) - According to the graph ..

anonymous asked:

What's sumerian like as far as sentence structure?

Silim! I’ve made a post touching on Sumerian syntax before, but here’s a bit more detailed of a description.

The overall clause structure of Sumerian is SOV, which means the basic order of sentences is the Subject, then the Object (where there is one) and any other oblique material (adverbs, indirect objects, etc), then the Verb. The strictest part of this is that the main verb always comes last in the sentence.

Within a noun phrase, the order is pretty much always Noun-first, followed by adjectives, genitives and the like, then by three key elements in a specific order: a possessive pronoun, plural marker and/or case ending. Each of these is optional, but when they do appear, they always appear in that order. (This post has more on the ordering of these elements.)

As for more complex sentences, a lot of what would be called “subordinate clauses” in English are not treated as full clauses in Sumerian; instead, either nominalized verbs (fully conjugated verbs with -a attached) or participles (which are more restricted) are used. “Compound sentences”, which in English are connected by conjunctions like and or or, are often treated as multiple simple sentences in Sumerian.

Hope that’s helpful! For some example sentences and posts in which I describe grammatical features in more detail, see the Sumerian grammar tag on this blog.

anonymous asked:

I want to be like you and speak many languages.. Some tips for learning another language? Love your blog (=

Hi! :)

I learnt three of my foreign languages (English, Spanish, Latin) in school, so there isn’t really any big secret behind it besides going to lessons and giving it your best. I would say, however, that just doing exercises for the lessons doesn’t give you enough exposure to the language you want to learn if you want to reach a high level of proficiency. You have to surround yourself by that language in your free time as well, for example by listening to music, watching TV shows or reading books in that language.

If you want to self-teach a language, you need a lot more discipline because you don’t have anyone assigning you homework and giving you tests. Thanks to the internet you have an abundance of resources - I’m currently learning Finnish with the help of a textbook and Memrise to learn the vocabulary, and as soon as I have a basic grasp of the grammar I’ll start reading a book in Finnish.

some tips that I found helpful:

  • do yourself a favour and learn how to read IPA. Pay attention to pronunciation from the very beginning!
  • you don’t have to be fluent in a language in order to read a book in it. Just start with books you’ve already read in your native language, and you’ll be fine.
  • Having a basic grasp on grammar terminology helps a lot! (Subject, Verb, Object, subordinate clause, pronouns, tenses, adjectives…)
  • learning a language can be hard work, but it should also be fun. If you find yourself hating opening memrise or duolingo, you should change something about your learning technique or approach.
  • don’t choose a language that you think will look good on your resume, choose a language that you’re interested in, because that will give you a lot more motivation. I probably won’t need Finnish for anything, but it’s fun! (Plus, any foreign language looks good on your resume.)

hope this helped! have fun learning languages :)

polaroidxirwin  asked:

hello! i just found this blog and it's so amazing to see all the questions people have because then i don't feel so alone! but i haven't seen this question yet so my question is: can you go over the basic sentence structures for things? because sometimes i'll think i have it correct and then suddenly the words are switched around but then when i try /that/ method again, it goes back to the way i had first? like if i put verb before subject, then it says subject before verb? do i make any sense?

Thank you so much, love!! <3 

I’ll try to cover the sentence structure in Norwegian main clauses (the post would probably get way too long if I tried to cover subordinate clauses as well, though I could do that in another post if you want! The main clause is definitely the most important/basic one though.)

( Also, do keep in mind that there are always exceptions in a language, so you might stumble across sentences that don’t follow these rules - though most sentences should. )

-

#1 - Essentials. 

Like English, Norwegian is a SVO-language (though it can also act as a VSO-language in certain sentences, but more about that in #5)

To make a sentence in Norwegian you must have:

1 - A verb
2 - A subject (you can omit the subject if you’re ordering someone to do something (e.g. “Run!” or “Come here!”), but to make an actual sentence, you would need both). 

This is enough to make very basic sentences, such as:

“Han går.” - “He walks.” / “He’s walking.”

“Jeg spiser.” - “I eat.” / “I’m eating.”

“Du ler.”“You laugh.” / “You’re laughing.”

*!!! - as you can probably see; in Norwegian there is no past progressive form, so sentences like “Han går” can be translated into both “He walks” and “He’s walking”. 

-

#2 - Verbs.

- Verbs must be the second element in a regular main clause

- Verbs must be the second element in a question if it’s not a yes/no-question 

- Verbs must be the first element in a question if it is a yes/no-question

*!!! - “element” is not the same as “word”. The subject could be “Mary and John”, but it’s still only one element. 

Examples:

A regular main clause:

Jeg bor hjemme.” - “I live at home.”

“Han spiste fisk.” - “He ate fish.”

“De løp rundt.” “They ran around.”

A regular question:

Hvor bor du?”“Where do you live?”

“Hva spiser du?” - “What are you eating?”

“Hvem er det?” - “Who is that?”

A yes/no-question:

“Bor du her?” - “Do you live here?”

“Spiser du fisk?” - “Do you eat fish?”

“Er det deg?” - “Is that you?”

-

#3 - Subject.

- The subject is usually the first element

- If it’s not the first element, it will be the third element, directly after the verb (this can happen when an adverbial or object is the first element etc.) 

- If the sentence has more than one verb and the subject is not the first element, the subject will be in between the verbs. 

Examples:

Subject as the first element:

“Jeg liker iskrem.” I like ice cream.”

“Jeg liker iskrem nå.” - “I like ice cream now.”

Subject as the third element: (usually you would make a sentence like this if you want to put more stress on the object or adverbial (time/place/etc.))

“Nå liker jeg iskrem.” “Now I like ice cream.” 

Two verbs + subject as the first element: 

Jeg kan spise iskrem nå.” - “I can eat ice cream now.”

Two verbs + subject as the third element (subject between the verbs):

“Nå kan jeg spise iskrem.” - “Now I can eat ice cream.” 

-

#4 - Negation.

- In a main clause the negation “ikke” will usually come directly after the verb.

- If the sentence has more than one verb, the negation will split the two.

- The subject can sometimes split the verb and “ikke” if it’s the third element of the main clause instead of the first

Examples:

“Jeg liker ikke brød.” “I don’t like bread.”

“Han snakker ikke mye.” - “He doesn’t talk much.”

Two verbs:

Han kan ikke lese.” - “He can’t read.”

“Jeg liker ikke å skrive.”“I don’t like to write.”

When the subject is the third element:

Nå lager han ikke mat.”“He’s not making food now.” 

“Denne boken liker jeg ikke.” - “I don’t like this book.”


*!!! - be aware that the negation “ikke” comes before the verb if it’s a subordinate clause and not a main clause

-

#5 - Adverbial. 

- Usually either the first or the very last element in a normal sentence.

Examples:

“Nå leser han.” - “Now he’s reading.”

“Han leser nå.” “He’s reading now.

*!!! - when an adverbial is the first element, the sentence can turn into an VSO-sentence instead of an SVO-sentence.

-

Like previously mentioned, there are always a lot of exceptions in a language, but this should at least be enough to make and understand basic sentences! c:

-

anonymous asked:

okay but the most offensive part of this are these FUCKING EM DASHES ("I glanced sidelong at him—and rage, not worry—flickered in those eyes.") It's so wrong!! sjm can't write for shit!!!!

Okay, kids, listen up: em-dashes serve to separate a subordinate clause from the main clause. If they are used correctly, the content between the dashes (the subordinate clause) can be removed and the sentence will still make sense. This is a simple test to see if em-dashes (as well as brackets and commas) are being used correctly!

Let’s apply it to this sentence.

“I glanced sidelong at him—and rage, not worry—flickered in those eyes.”

“I glanced sidelong at him flickered in those eyes.”

Nope!

If the author really really wants to use a subordinate clause in this sentence, it should go something like:

“I glanced sidelong at him, and rage–not worry–flickered in those eyes.”

This is such basic grammar. Why why why did an editor not remove this shit?

Afrikaans word-order

Constructing a sentence in Afrikaans is relatively simply since one needn’t worry about cases, conjugations or even gender agreement. All that matters is syntax (or word order).

I’ve attempted to cover quite a lot in this post– briefly. Feel free to send an ask for a more detailed explanation of a specific aspect

► Normal sentences

► most importantly, Afrikaans is a V2 language, which means the verb is always the 2nd element in the sentence. Keep an eye out for this because it’s always true (in main clauses).

► All other elements are pretty flexible. The general word order rule is STOMPI which stands for: Subject – Time – Object – Manner – Place – Infinitives and participles (although sometimes the object can go after the adverb of manner). Together with the V2-rule, that gives you SvTOMPI — you needn’t follow it too rigidly, but it’s a good guideline.

For example, some basic sentences:

  • My naam is Sam  (My name is Sam)
  • Ek eet soggens ʼn appel  (I eat an apple in the mornings)
  • Ek wil môre biblioteek toe gaan  (I want to go to the library tomorrow)

Here is a longer sentence :

  • Ek skryf elke dag ʼn artikel stilletjies by die werk om te blog  
    (I write an article quietly at work every day, to post on my blog)

for emphasis, you can start the sentence with almost any of the elements. But remember, no matter what you start with, the verb will be in the 2nd position and everything else follows the pattern :

  • Ek skryf elke dag ʼn artikel stilletjies by die werk om te blog

Notice in the following sentences that the subject comes after the verb! This is different from English!

  • Elke dag, skryf ek ʼn artikel stilletjies by die werk om te blog
  • Stilletjies skryf ek elke dag ʼn artikel by die werk om te blog [*poetic]
  • By die werk skryf ek elke dag ʼn artikel stilletjies om te blog

Starting with the infinitive adds the nuance of : “In order to …”

  • Om te blog, skryf ek elke dag ʼn artikel stilletjies by die werk

And starting with the object only works in the passive voice:

  • ʼn Artikel word elke dag deur my stilletjies by die werk geskryf om te blog

►Questions

Similarly, questions start with a question word, the verb follows in the 2nd position, and then STOMPI

  • Hoe gaan dit vandag met jou?  (How are you today?)
  • Waarvoor wil jy môre biblioteek toe gaan?
    (Why do you want to go to the library tomorrow?)

Other questions simply invert the subject and the verb. In these instances, the verb will be in the 1st position:

  • Gaan jy môre biblioteek toe? (Are you going to the library tomorrow?)

► Tense

the same rules apply to the past and future tenses. Just remember that participles go at the end with the infinitives.

  • Present: Ek skryf ʼn artikel by die werk (I write an article at work)
  • Past:  Ek het ʼn artikel by die werk geskryf
  • Future: Ek sal ʼn artikel by die werk skryf

You should also be aware of separable verbs. These are best left for a post specifically about verbs, but since it influences word order, this is how it works:

  • Present: Ek gooi die rommel weg  (I throw the rubbish/trash away)
  • Past:  Ek het die rommel weggegooi
  • Future: Ek sal die rommel weggooi

► Conjunctions

Above, were the word-order rules for a single sentence. Now, when joining two sentences together, they type of conjunction used will have an effect on the word order in the subordinate clauses (the second sentence)

  1. Ek gaan biblioteek toe   (I’m going to the library)
  2. My boek is reeds laat   (My book is already late)

► GROUP 1 consists of maar (but), en (and), of (or), want (because).
The word order of both clauses stays the same. For example:

► GROUP 2 consists of dan (then), daarna (thereafter), dus, daarom (therefore), toe (then), anders (otherwise), al (although).
Here the verb come directly after the conjunction :

► GROUP 3 consists of dat (that), omdat (because), totdat (until), nadat (after), sodat (so that), wat (who, what), alhoewel (although), toe (when), terwyl (while), sedert (since), as, of (if), tensy (unless).
After Group 3 conjunctions, the verb goes to the end of the 2nd clause:

anonymous asked:

Hei! I'm currently learning Norwegian (Bokmål) on Duolingo and I have a couple questions, if you don't mind me asking! For possessives, are (for an example) "ditt egg" and "egget ditt" both grammatically correct in any sentence structure? examples: "Det er ditt egg" and "Det er egget ditt." And for "ikke," is it used AFTER verbs? example: "jeg spiser ikke egg." I hope this ask wasn't TOO complicated! :) I really love Norwegian and hope I become fluent in it in a couple years!

Hey there!! <33

As for possessives, they would both be grammatically correct in any sentence structure (unless I’m forgetting something atm??) – however if you place the possessive before the noun, it can sound a bit more formal, or even awkward. 

e.g. “Min far er her” would sound more formal than “Faren min er her”, while “Vår lærer er streng” can sound awkward compared to “Læreren vår er streng”, but they’re both grammatically correct! c: It’s usually more common to place the possessive after the noun, though. 


“Ikke” is a bit more complicated – now most of the time, you’ll indeed place it after verb. So you’re more likely to see sentences like:
“Jeg liker ikke grøt.”
“Han er ikke her.”
“Vi dro ikke allikevel.” 

However:

#1. “Ikke” is placed before the verb if it’s part of an embedded clause
(an embedded clause is basically like, a sentence within a sentence, if that makes sense)

So if you were to say this:

“My doctor, who wasn’t very kind, told me to leave.”

- then “ikke” would come before the verb, since “who wasn’t very kind” is an embedded clause

CORRECT: “Doktoren min, som ikke var veldig snill, ba meg dra.”
INCORRECT: “Doktoren min, som var ikke veldig snill, ba meg dra”

-

#2. “Ikke” is placed before the verb if it’s part of a subordinate clause
(
a subordinate clause is the extra/technically unnecessary info in a sentence)

So this is a main clause, without a subordinate clause:
“Hun sa det.” - “She said that.”

This is the same clause, but with a subordinate clause:
“Hun sa at han ikke kom. - “She said that he wasn’t coming.”

In this case, “ikke” is placed before the verb (”kom”) because it’s a part of a subordinate clause. On the other hand, if you wanted to say this:
“Hun sa ikke det.” - “She didn’t say that.” 

- then “ikke” would come after the verb (”sa”) because it’s not a part of a subordinate clause.

Basically, if “ikke” is part of the main clause, it’s after the verb - if it’s not, it’s before the verb. 

Unless:

-

#3. “Ikke” is placed before the verb if the verb is in the imperative mood
(imperative mood is basically when you’re commanding or requesting someone to do something) 

In other words:
“Jeg løper ikke. (indicative mood/regular mood) = “I’m not running.”
Ikke løp!” (imperative mood/a command) = “Don’t run!”

So, place “ikke” before the verb if you’re commanding or requesting someone to not do something – unless you want to sound like a medieval poet (you can see sentences like “løp ikke” in old poems etc. but that’s about it)

Hope that answered your question! c:

Ausklammerung "Exbraciation" [German Grammar]

So this is an interesting concept (where you place something in the ‘Nachfeld’) which I only really /fully/ learnt about recently and is about word order. First of all you need to understand that this concerns part of a sentence called the 'Nachfeld’ (Post-field) which is the bit after the 'sentence brackets’ which is /usually/ after a verb/verb prefix:

E.g. [ ] = Sentence brackets (Mittelfeld), < > = Nachfeld.
Sie [hat ein Buch erhalten], <das sie sofort las>.
[Gib ihm sofort das Geld zurück], <das du ihm gestohlen hast>!

Or with just one simple predicate it comes after the object normally:

Der Großvater [schenkt seinem Enkel ein Buch], <das rot war>.

Now in German there are rules as to what can be placed in the Nachfeld, and it is important you understand which because otherwise you’ll be like “whyyy?!”


Subordinate Clauses in Nachfeld

Subordinate Clauses often appear in the Nachfeld (like the first two examples of this post!), but can be in the Mittelfeld.

e.g. Wir sind nicht in den Wald gegangen, weil es so stark regnete. (Nach)
e.g. Wir sind, weil es so stark regnete, nicht in den Wald gegangen. (Mittel)

German prefers the Nachfeld because otherwise it’s less comprehensible with long sentences, e.g. Wir sind, weil ich, meine Tochter und ihre neue Freundin damals keine Lust hatten, nicht in den Wald gegangen.

Infinitive Clauses in Nachfeld

Infinitive Clauses usually appear here, but can be in the Mittelfeld.

e.g. Geht bitte nicht weg, ohne euch zu verabschieden! (Nach)
e.g. Geht bitte nicht ohne euch zu verabschieden weg! (Mittel)

Modern German prefers the Nachfeld because for the love of God look how more comprehensible the first one is.

Comparative Clauses with Als/Wie

Comparative Clauses with als/wie are often placed in the Nachfeld, and rarely the Mittelfeld.

e.g. Wir haben die Aufgabe anders gelöst als ihr. (Nach)
e.g. Wir haben die Aufgabe anders als ihr gelöst. (Mittel)

However if you’re using als not in a comparative way then you need to put it in Mittel… usually… since it’s a prepositional phrase, but see below for the section on that!

e.g. Wir haben ihn als aufrichtigen Menschen kennen gelernt. (Mittel, Nach impossible)

Prepositional Phrases

This is the thing that originally got me confused, but prepositional phrases can appear in the Nachfeld and usually do if they are complex - this is so a German doesn’t have to remember to keep the verb in their head and it makes it easier.

e.g. Die Aufgabe wurde diesmal gelöst durch eine zehnköpfige, aus Vertretern verschiedener deutscher Universitäten und technischer Hochschulen zusammengesetzte Expertengruppe. (Nach)

e.g. Die Aufgabe wurde diesmal durch eine zehnköpfige, aus Vertretern verschiedener deutscher Universitäten und technischer Hochschulen zusammengesetzte Expertengruppe gelöst. (Mittel)

This can only happen with prepositional phrases that are objects or adverbials in a sentence. You CANNOT do it with pronominal adverbs either (Niemand kann mir dabei helfen dabei).

Sometimes smaller, less complex ones will appear but this is usually for stylistic choice/emphasis:

e.g. Niemand kommt mehr zur Ruhe in dieser hektischen Zeit. (Nach)
e.g. Niemand kommt mehr in dieser hektischen Zeit zur Ruhe. (Mittel)

Apposition

Long, complex appositions usually appear in the Nachfeld (for comprehensibility), but can appear in Mittelfeld.

e.g. Wir wollten die Notre Dame du Haut besuchen, eine Wallfahrtskirche, die vom Architekten Le Corbusier in den Fünfzigerjahren oberhalb des Dorfes Ronchamps erbaut wurde. (Nach)
e.g. Wir wollten die Notre Dame du Haut, eine Wallfahrtskirche, die vom Architekten Le Corbusier in den Fünfzigerjahren oberhalb des Dorfes Ronchamps erbaut wurde, besuchen. (Mittel)

Sometimes smaller, less complex ones will appear but this is usually for stylistic choice/emphasis:

e.g. Er ist an Krebs gestorben, dieser heimtückischen Krankheit. (Nach)
e.g. Er ist an Krebs, dieser heimtückischen Krankheit, gestoben. (Mittel) 


Enjoy :-) The only really “difficult” one here is perhaps the Prepositional Phrase one as it took me like 1.5 years before I even encountered that example in writing lmao.