texts: Usage of "let me know" in Letter writing

texts:
For my A1 exam, we have a letter writing part and there is a requirement that we should write a minimum of 30 words in the body of the letter. In some contexts, the usage of please let me know is useful [not only increases the word count, but also sounds polite ;-)]. For example consider this question and my answer.

  Q:
  Sie waren im letzten Sommer in München in einem Deutschkurs. Ihr Lehrer war Herr
      Benradt, eine sehr sympathische Person. Schreiben Sie an Herrn Benradt.

  Stellen Sie sich kurz vor.
  Gibt es dieses Jahr wieder einen Kurs? Wann?
  Sie möchten sich für den Kurs anmelden.

  A:
  Bangalore, den 09.12.2012

  Lieber Herr Benradt,

  ich war im letzten Sommer in München. Ich war Student in Ihrem Deutschkurs.
      Ich habe Ihren Unterricht sehr gut gefunden.
      Bitte lassen Sie mich wissen, wenn Sie dieses Jahr wieder einen Kurs geben und wann beginnt der Kurs.
      Ich möchte mich für den Kurs anmelden.

  Mit Freundlichen Grüßen,
      ABC XYZ

Is the above usage of "Bitte lassen Sie mich wissen" correct?

As always, I am open to learn better word usage and sentence constructions. Please give your suggestions.


texts:
Diese Frage betrifft den folgenden Satz aus Kindergeschichten von Peter Bichsel.

  Ich will von einem alten Mann erzählen, von einem Mann, der kein Wort mehr sagt, ein müdes Gesicht hat, zu müd zum Lächeln und zu müd, um böse zu sein.

FRAGE

Bedeutet zum Lächeln das gleiche wie um zu lächeln?
Wenn nein zu 1, wie unterscheidet sich zum Lächeln von um zu lächeln?
Wenn ja zu 1, kann man zum Lächeln als Vorlage bei irgendein Verb verwenden?  Kann man zum Beispiel zum böse Sein sagen?  Falls nein, auf welche Art ist die Verwendung eingeschränkt?

HINTERGRUND

Diese ist meine erste Frage in deutsch und eigentlich der erste Versuch der Komposition in deutsch. Korrigieren Sie sie wo immer sie sich bessern kann.


texts: Why are "tomorrow" and "morning" the same in German?

texts:
I have encountered the following interesting (at least to me) fact, that in German the words tomorrow and morning have the same spelling: Morgen.
I have three questions here:

Do these words have the same meaning or they are just homographs?
How one could say I will do something tomorrow morning?
Why is this so? I mean is it due to some historical fact?


texts: Use of ihn pronoun "ihn deshalb später in der Mediathek geguckt."

texts:
I was reading the sentence

  Er hat den Film im Fernsehen verpasst und ihn deshalb später in der Mediathek geguckt.

and it seemed relative easy to first translate and make sense:

He missed the film on TV and he therefore later watched it on catch-up TV

but I'm confused by ihn.

I would have thought that since "und" connects two main clauses, the second main clause would be

  Er deshalb später in der Mediathek geguckt.

I know that ihn is the accusative of "er" but I can't see which verb requires "he" to be in the accusative, and also because "he" is the subject performing the action.

Why is "ihn" used over "er"?


texts: Confusion about infinitive clause "zu entspannen"

texts:
I was thinking about a sentence on the way home I wanted to translate -

  I didn't have time to relax.

and I was planning to use the perfekt tense.

Now, I can start the sentence structure by saying (or at least I think I can) -

  Ich habe nicht Zeit gehabt.

but I was thinking, is the part of the sentence 'to relax' an infinitive clause?

i.e. does the complete sentence:

  Ich habe nicht Zeit zu entspannen gehabt.

make sense?


texts:
I have heard the following sentence in the TV series "How to Sell Drugs Online (Fast)":

Das hat er dir geglaubt?

Does that mean "Did he believe that (which you said)?" / "Did he believe you (when you said that)" ? In English, "to believe" can only have one direct object (a person or a thing), so it's odd for me to see both a direct object and an indirect object with the German verb "glauben".


texts:
I wonder if the word "Anwendungsupdates" can be splitted in 2 separated words like: "Anwendungs updates" or it would be a grammatical error.
To be more specific, the problem I have is that this word is long, so it breaks the following table because of that word.
If it's not possible to split that word, how would you solve the issue? (So far, my best idea is to make the font smaller)


texts: Deutsche Redewendung für „Sit around the campfire and sing Kumbaya“

texts:
Ich habe nach einem Äquivalent auf Deutsch gesucht, konnte aber keines finden. Das einzige, das mir einfällt ist Abwarten und Tee trinken, aber ich glaube nicht, dass dies den Sarkasmus und die implizierte Blauäugigkeit der Zielperson enthält. Auch der Sinn von unerwünschten Geselligkeit mit seinen Feinden sollte dabei sein.

Hier sind einige Links, die die Bedeutung auf Englisch erklären:

urbandictionary
answers.yahoo.com


texts: How do I say "It's all about the marketing"?

texts:
I've tried googling it up, but to no direct success.
Google translate suggests

Es geht nur um die Vermarktung.
or
Es ist alles über die Vermarktung

Is any one of that correct? I'm a little confused with the noun choice, for one thing. Also, there seems to be a parallel text of

Jetzt geht’s um die Wurst! = It’s all about the sausage now!

So, does

Geht's um das Marketing

convey the meaning and not sound awkward? Also, is it Nominative or Genitive? What's happening here, grammatically?


texts: Does "Denkendes" refer to someone or something which is thinking?

texts:
Überall ist Gedanke und im Gedanken Denken und Denkendes, zuerst und zuletzt persönlicher Geist, der selbst in den räumlich-zeitlichen Dingen sich ausdrückt und bet[h]ätigt

Is Denkendes referring to someone or something which is thinking?


texts: Comparing "die Situation" vs. "deren Situation" with something

texts:
An episode of www.SlowGerman.com has the following sentence:

Den Kindern in Deutschland geht es gut, wenn man die Situation mit vielen anderen Ländern vergleicht.

In English I believe this translates to:

The children in Germany have it good if you compare their situation to those in many other countries.

But what the German sentence actually appears to say is:

The children in Germany have it good if you compare the situation in many other countries.

Since it does not make sense to compare a situation to a country, should not the German be more correctly written as something like this?

Den Kindern in Deutschland geht es gut, wenn man ihre Situation mit diejenigen in vielen anderen Ländern vergleicht.


texts: Wann benutzt man Genitiv + reflexives Verb

texts: Ich habe eine Genitivform der reflexiven Pronomen in einer Grammatiktabelle gesehen, und zwar: mich (akk), mir (dat) und meiner (gen). Aber wann verwendet man eigentlich die letzte Form in Kontext von Reflexivverben?


texts: Usage of "sei" in old and modern german?

texts:
I have noticed in both commercial folk music as well as older texts it seems very often that constructions with "sei" (alter sein/ist?) are being frequently used. Meanwhile I have almost never seen it in (my) homework assignments, newspaper text, TV or from other modern sources.
Is it still part of the german language?
Example of some old text where it occurs:

my attempt at reading (lol):
Anschaulicher, als durch dieses Gleichniß vom menschlichen Leibe, läßt sich gewiß nicht zeigen, wie notwendig es für das Gedeihen einer jeden gesellschaftlichen Verbindung sei, daß deren Glieder stets in Eintracht mit einander bleiben...

Edit:
OMG here is also word Leib as in Leibler(?) (Kullback-Leibler Divergenz für die Mathe-freaks)
Is it also an example of Hochdeutsch or something else?


texts: Meaning of -hin and -her as movement away/toward the speaker

texts:
I thought that the particle (used as suffix or as prefix) "hin" always conveys the meaning of a destination or movement away from the speaker, while the opposite (movement coming towards the speaker) held for the particle "her". The easiest example that comes to mind is of "wohin" vs "woher", that enquire about a destination and an origin respectively.

However, as I learn more words in German, I am encountering "her" in words that also have to do with outward movement (away from the speaker), such as "heraus", which I understand to mean "[going] toward the exterior".

Is this an exception to the hin/her rule, or did I just understand that rule incorrectly?


texts: Is animate/inanimate a grammatical category in German?

texts:
In Russian, each noun is either animate or inanimate. Normally, nouns denoting living things are animate, while the rest are inanimate. It is, in fact, not only a semantic, but actually a grammatical category since formation of some case-forms of the noun depends on whether it is animate or not (an interesting minimal pair example is the different declensions of the word мышь (mouse) depending on whether it refers to the animal or to the input device). Therefore, a dictionary lists animacy alongside other grammatical aspects such as gender.

Now, I was just reading an article about da-words. Here’s a quote:

  I want to point out again that this whole da-thing is only done when you talk about things… like a table, a dream or a place. If you talk about a living being like a dog or a cat you wouldn’t use it. Those are treated like persons. But let’s do some examples and compare sentences with persons and things.

Several examples are then listed:

Ich träume von ihr (der Party). — wrong
Ich träume davon (von der Party).  —  correct
Ich spiele mit ihr (der Katze). — correct
Ich spiele damit (mit der Katze). — wrong

So it does seem that animate/inanimate distinction is important in German as well. So, my question, at the risk of being too broad, is twofold.

Firstly, what are other, if any, circumstances where the animacy of a noun is important in German?

Secondly, sticking to the example of choosing between preposition+pronoun and the da-preposition, is the distinction of living vs. non-living so clear cut? I am asking because it very much is not so in Russian (for example a corpse (труп) is inanimate, while a dead man (мертвец) is animate). So here are some specific examples:

Ich träume von ihm (dem Toten) or Ich träume davon?
Ich spiele mit ihr (der Computermaus) or Ich spiele damit?
Ich denke an ihn (den Organismus) or Ich denke daran?
Ich denke an ihn (den Käfer) or Ich denke daran? (Living enough?)
Ich denke an es (das Bakterium) or Ich denke daran?

This is not to say that I am interested only in these five words. I am interested in any corner cases where the distinction of living/non-living might be hard to determine mechanically.


texts: Meaning and English translation of adjective "link"

texts:
I'm having trouble finding an appropriate English translation for the adjective "link" used in the examples below:

"Der linke Begriff des Establishments wird ihm zur Waffe."
"... einen weißen Mob gegen einen bestimmt nicht linken Politikbetrieb mobilisieren kann, ..."

I have "misleading" for the first one, but can't quite figure out a suitable word for the second. If I am on the right track, that is? I hadn't come across this word before until now.
Any suggestions?


texts:
I read jenste occasionally in Swiss newspapers, which is consistent with the fact that dict.cc classifies the word as schweiz.

I see that it means “many” but is there more to it? Does it have a nuance? Also: What is its etymological background?


texts: "Kochen beibringen" vs "*das* Programmieren beibringen"

texts:
I found the following two sentences by searching online:

  Ich habe ihm Kochen beigebracht.
  Ich habe ihm das Programmieren beigebracht.

I'm puzzled by the fact that one sentence includes das and the other one doesn't.

Is the das just optional?

In other words, are the variants below correct?

  Ich habe ihm das Kochen beigebracht.
  Ich habe ihm Programmieren beigebracht.

Is there some succinct characterization of the verbs that one should precede with das in such a pattern?


texts:
Gibt es für die Konstruktion von Wörtern wie:
Kubakrise / Kuba-Krise
Krimkrise / Krim-Krise
bestimmte Regelungen? Sind beide Fälle verwendbar? Falls ja, welcher von beiden wäre stylistisch angebrachter?


texts: "was/were going to" equivalent in German

texts: English has was/were going to construct for past future. Can wurde be used for the same purpose? It is used for passive voice in the past. Can it be used for active voice as well?


texts:
If someone meets someone in a bar and offers that person to buy them both a drink, in English one could say,

Please, have a drink with me, on me
Let us have a drink together, on me

How to say "on me" in an informal way? Perhaps:

Auf mich
Über mir

(I think "ich zahle" is practially more common in German but I might be wrong).


texts: "Die machen kein Problem für dich" or "die sind kein Problem für dich"?

texts:
When I want to say

  So they're no problem for you.

in German, which of the two sentences is (more) correct or common?

More context:

I was talking about the two special German words, "Sie" and "du". Then someone asked me if we have the same words in my native language and I said yes in reply. The sentence I asked is about how that person should respond to my sentence.


texts: Unable to distinguish the meaning of two sentences which have words placed in different positions

texts:
What is the difference between the following two sentences.
Google translate is showing different meaning for them.

Sent 1: Sie ist letzten Monat schon drei geworden

Sent 2: Sie ist letzten schon drei Monat geworden

Can anyone please explain to me how the position of Monat will change the meaning?
Also is there any impact if we place letzten to some other position like after drei?

Thanks a lot.


texts: What comes last? Separable prefix or a dependent infinitive NOT related to that prefix?

texts:
I just had a small confusion regarding a simple phrase. If I want to say "It starts to smell" which one is correct? and why?

Es fängt zu riechen an.

Es fängt an zu riechen.

I'm interested in a grammatical explanation regarding which of these parts of speech have the right to precede the other.
I'm more inclined to think that the first one is correct since the separable prefix should come last but I googled both phrases and got numerable results.
Also, Google Translate gives the second as correct so I'm confused.


texts: How to identify the target of a preposition?

texts:
In a DW report today, the following 2 sentences appeared:

Mehrere Hundert Demonstranten haben in Bulgarien den sofortigen Rücktritt der Regierung von Präsident Boiko Borissow gefordert.

Original sentence:

Andernfalls würden sie das Parlament bei einer Sondersitzung an diesem Donnerstag blockieren, um seinen Rückzug durchzusetzen.

Now it was not clear to me who was going to be "bei einer Sondersitzung", parliament or the demonstrators. So I asked Google Translate and then reversed the translation, which produced this sentence. Notice that GT has changed the preposition.
Google Translate:

Andernfalls würden sie das Parlament auf einer Sondersitzung an diesem Donnerstag blockieren, um seinen Rückzug durchzusetzen.

If I truncate the sentence and perform the same procedure then GT does not change the preposition.
Original sentence:

Andernfalls würden sie das Parlament bei einer Sondersitzung an diesem Donnerstag blockieren.

Google Translate:

Andernfalls würden sie das Parlament bei einer Sondersitzung an diesem Donnerstag blockieren.

I conclude from this that, probably, either preposition is correct, although I don't know how to verify this.
But my original question remains. How does one tell in the second sentence to whom the "bei einer Sondersitzung" belongs, that is to say, who will be participating in "die Sondersitzung", or which group is it that will be engaged in "die Sondersitzung"? I know the parliament is the logical answer, but I am wondering if the sentence structure enforces that relationship or leaves it up to the reader to fathom?


texts: German equivalent to "going down the rabbit hole"

texts:
Was ist eine passende Übersetzung für die Redewendung "going down the rabbit hole"?

Im Sinne von: man informiert sich über Thema X, stößt dann auf Wikipedia auf das zusammenhängende Thema Y, von da zum Thema Z und auf einmal ist es 2 Uhr nachts.

Edit:

Ich kann anscheinend keine Kommentare verfassen, daher hier nochmal eine Klarstellung:

@Pollitzer tut mir leid, wenn meine Frage inkonsistent sein sollte. Ich meinte es aber tatsächlich so wie @tofro - sich in etwas einarbeiten, dabei ständig neue Facetten aufzudecken und so immer tiefer in das Thema einzudringen. Ein konkretes Beispiel, woher auch meine Frage stammt:

Ich informiere mich über Domain-Registrierung, komme dann über Wikipedia auf die ICANN, dann irgendwie auf Webhosting, dedizierte Server, Root-Server, statisches Webhosting (gh pages, netlify, zeit), statische Websitegeneratoren (jekyll, gatsby), …

Eigentlich wollte ich nur etwas über Domains erfahren.

Edit 2:

Ich bin deutscher Muttersprachler. Kann gut sein, dass ich schon die englische Redewendung falsch verstanden habe. Sie ist relativ häufig auf Reddit zu finden. Zum Beispiel in diesem Post oder auch hier.


texts: Worin liegt der Unterschied zwischen "sich lösen" und "sich auflösen"?

texts: Wo liegt der Bedeutungsunterschied zwischen den oben genanten Wörter wenn es um eine Beschreibung der defekten Ware geht (Kleidungsstück)? Sagt man: Das Material hat sich gelöst oder aufgelöst? Was kann sich noch lösen/auflösen (immer im Kontext der Schäden)?


texts: "so/such that ..." construction auf Deutsch

texts:
How can I indicate that the manner, nature or degree of something influences another thing? Examples:
("so that")

It is so big that I cannot fit it in my mouth.

("such that")

He makes cookies such that one wonders what is in them.
He makes such cookies that one wonders what is in them.

We can also use this construction to say that the manner of an action caused something:

He is laughing so hard that milk is coming out his nose.

To clarify the second and third, let me emphasize that it is not necessarily his intention to make such cookies; he makes cookies, and the nature of those cookies causes people to wonder what is in those cookies. In other words, the meaning of the second would be very much altered if "so" were substituted for "such". And the third would sound like nonsense with "so" substituted for "such".


texts:
Welche der folgenden Formulierungen sind korrekt?
Worin unterscheiden sie sich?
Wenn alle drei korrekt sind, kann ich meine Wahl durch ein anderes Substantiv ersetzen?

  a1. Ich bin mir meiner Wahl sicher.
  a2. Ich bin meiner Wahl sicher.

  b. Ich bin mir mit meiner Wahl sicher.

  c. Ich bin mit meiner Wahl sicher.


texts: How are probabilities written in German?

texts:
I was reading over some statistics notes that one of the German universities had made available online (it is entirely in German), and I'm confused because they've written P(X=1)=0.25. That's exactly how we write decimal probabilities in English, but I was told that the commas and periods are always switched in German. So for example, your weekly salary of one thousand Euros is written 1.000 and your coffee costs you 2,00 in Germany.
Most of the notes on the Wahrscheinlichkeit document are written as P(X=1)= 1/4 (in English, we also tend to write probabilities as fractions, so those ones are easy to read as they're identical to how we write it). But I'm definitely confused about why P(X=1)=0.25 isn't written with a comma there? I couldn't find anything on Google explaining what is going on with those probabilities. Thanks!


texts: The pronunciation of German "e" in "Themen aktuell"

texts:
I'm new to German, I select Themen aktuell as my textbook, but it confuses me at the very first stage.

Feel free to watch this lesson here. Don't worry, it's very short :)

  The speaker pronounces German e as [ei]:
  helga ['hɛlga] as ['heilga],
  heiße ['haisə] as ['haisei].

Is it a dialect or not?


texts: Why are there two articles in front of a noun?

texts:
While reading a passage about language acquisition, I saw two articles in front of a single noun, and I'm a bit confused. Does it mean "to the first language" or something else, could you please explain this kind of usage in German?

  Basierend auf dem nativistischen Ansatz geht die Identitätshypothese davon aus,  dass der Erwerb der Zweitsprache im Prinzip dem der Erstsprache gleicht.


texts: "Ob es not tue" / "ob es not tut". What does it mean?

texts:
There's an expression in "Die Wahlverwandtschaften" of Goethe:

  Herr Mittler ist in den Schlosshof gesprengt. Er hat uns alle zusammengeschrieen, wir sollen sie aufsuchen, wir sollen Sie fragen, ob es not tue.

  'Ob es not tut', rief er uns nach, 'hoert ihr? Aber geschwind, geschwind!'

I tried to find this expression in Ge-En and Ge-Ge dictionaries, but neither of them (Collings, dict.cc, linguee.de, Duden) provided me with an explanation of the phrase.

I found an explanation in Google-books, it says that it means "is there need", and it somehow explains the meaning of the whole phrase (the Mittler is asking if there's a need in his service), but I need a better source than one book in G-books. Is there any? Could anybody explain me the grammar of this phrase and where it comes from?


texts: Was ist der Unterschied zwischen einer Sage und einer Legende?

texts:
Ich habe bisher die Wörter Sage und Legende synonym verwendet. Es gibt zwar Dinge die ich so nenne, und andere Dinge, die ich wieder anders nenne (bspw. würde ich nie die Niebelungenlegende sagen), aber bisher war mir kein Unterschied bewusst. Nun wurde mir aber in einer Diskussion gesagt, dass es nur ähnlich ist, der Unterschied wurde mir allerdings nicht erklärt. Ebenfalls Wikipedia meint, dass Sagen und Legenden (genau wie Märchen) nur ähnlich sind.

  Eine Sage [...] ist, dem Märchen und der Legende ähnlich

Quelle: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sage


texts: Does someone know where the family name Lichfett comes from? I met this name in Brazil. Is it perhaps only a modified version of Lichtfett?


texts: Is Low German dialect still used in Germany?

texts:
I’m curious to know whether Low German dialect is still used in Germany or not.

If so, in which areas? Is it both either spoken and written or only as a colloquial spoken language?


texts: “Sind Sie Ingenieur?” should be “Sind Sie ein Ingenieur?”

texts:
This question has also an answer in German:
  Wann wird ein Beruf mit dem unbestimmten Artikel verwendet?

While studying for the A1 exam, I’ve stumbled upon the following sentence:

  “Sind Sie Ingenieur?” – Are you an engineer?

And I can’t understand why there isn’t the “ein”/“eine” article.


texts: Was ist der Unterschied zwischen Programmierparadigma und Programmierstil?

texts:
Ein Programmierstil ist laut Wikipedia " ... in der Programmierung das Erstellen von Quellcode nach bestimmten vorgegebenen Regeln."

Ein Programmierparadigma ist "ein fundamentaler Programmierstil."

Was genau unterscheidet einen fundamentalen Programmierstil von einem "nicht fundamentalen"? Und ist das der einzige Unterschied zwischen den beiden Begriffen?


texts:
When looking up the meaning of "emsig" (assiduous, diligent) it seems it has an entirely positive connotation

unausgesetzt fleißig, ununterbrochen tätig  DWDS

The first that come to mind with "emsig" are ants and bees:

Zu den bevorzugten Materialien für den Unterbau zählen kleinkörnige Bruchsteine wie Splitt oder Schotter, die zugleich emsige Ameisen vom Nestbau abhalten.
Sie fühlen sich wie ein emsiges Bienchen, das ständig von einer Ecke zur anderen fliegt, aber scheinbar doch kein Ende in Sicht ist, weil sich gleich wieder eine neue Baustelle auftut, wenn eine andere geschlossen ist?

However we also often hear of people that are attributed to be "emsig":

Zumindest ein wenig von dem Ruhm der großen Renaissance-Künstler hätte doch auf ihn abstrahlen sollen. Emsig hatte er daran gearbeitet, den eigenen Namen mit den Namen Leonardos, Raffaels und Michelangelos für immer zu verbinden.ZEIT

Viele andere Künstler der Biennale, die erfolgreichen und akzeptierten, agieren spiegelbildlich: Sie produzieren möglichst unperfekte, emsig um Mühelosigkeit bemühte Werke, die aber oft ebenfalls unlebendig und nichtssagend ausfallen.ZEIT

In these contexts it feels like "emsig" may have not an entirely positive connotation.
Is that slightly ironical touch always true when calling people "emsig"? May someone even be offended by that?


texts: Difference between "Jägermeister" and "Waidmann"

texts: I learned a new German word today, Waidmann, but I already knew the word Jägermeister, so I wondered what the difference between them is. When would a German use one over the other?


texts: What type of declension is used for the nouns `Deutsche` and `Verwandte`?

texts:
When it comes to declension of nouns, plentiful references are available for the following two categories:

strongly declined nouns (append -(e)s for masculine and neutral singular genitive, -n for plural dative). Most nouns go here.
weakly declined nouns (always masculine. Append -(e)n for all cases but singular nominative). A limited set of nouns go into this category. e.g. Bär, Kunde

EDIT (thanks RDBur):

mixed nouns - masculine and neutral nouns that are declined strongly in the singular and weakly in the plural. A very limited set of nouns go into this category. e.g. See (masc.), Auge (neut.)

In its own category, so not following any rules but its own:

the noun Herz - appends -ens for singular genitive and -en for all other cases but singular nominative. You can use one of two forms in singular dative: dem Herz or dem Herzen

Question
The words Deutsche and Verwandte are peculiar in two ways:

Each has two declension tables. Source: leo.org. Declension tables for Verwandte. I understand each has a form for masculine and another for feminine.
the terminations follow the rules of none of the categories mentioned above.

Moreover, a site that is always correct, Duolingo, requires the translation of
She doesn't have any relatives.
to be
Sie hat keine Verwandten. (notice the -n ending)
and rejects
Sie hat keine Verwandte.
which I go for based on my interpretation of the declension tables. (I go for unbestimmter Plural Akkusativ and both tables agree on that entry.)
Are Deutsche and Verwandte part of another category? What are the rules?
How am I failing Duolingo?
References are highly appreciated too.


texts:
The following sentence appears in episode 216 of Slow German:

Er erfand das Kork-Fußbett, das heute berühmt ist für Birkenstock-Sandalen.

Is not the verb in the relative clause in the wrong place? Should it not read

Er erfand das Kork-Fußbett, das heute berühmt für Birkenstock-Sandalen ist.

Is there any justification for the original word order?


texts: Two different case of determiner and adjective before individual noun

texts:
The original sentence will found in second answer of this question thread.

  Original sentence: 1. Es wird nächsten Sommer/im nächsten Sommer sein.

I have written the sentence below only with Preposition + Article

  Es wird im nächsten Sommer sein.

In the 2nd sentence the determiner im = in + dem(Dativ) and adjective nächsten (accusative) are in two different case before the noun (Sommer),

So my question is: Is it appropriate to have two different case of determiner and adjective before an individual noun which they both modify?