While searching for the answer in Google, I saw also "Lasst This variant surely is dated.
I guess they mean "Lernen wir jetzt". I would use "Lass uns lernen" because the other sentence sounds more like a question to me "Lernen wir jetzt?
Oder können wir noch spielen? That's a common falscher Freund. English "to study" translates into either üben or lernen. Studieren means to major in something. The more common form, at least in written language, is formed by Konjunktiv I:.
The other form with "Lassen" is more common in formal contexts, as it is the only way to mark formality for adhortative mood:. It is unlikely that it stems from English, as it appears in many Germanic languages. It is, however, likely that English causes it to be used more often.
Johannes Erben in "Lasst uns Feiern" claims that there is a third way to express adhortative mood, with wollen:. Personally, I think that lassen is more commanding; it should be used if you want to really command others to follow you:. Apart from that, the adhortative mood is often paraphrased by questions, especially with sollen:.
The Yiddish idiom is quite distinctive in this case: Technically I suppose it should be lass uns pr. I don't know if that's dative or accusitive but nominative is definitely wrong. And yet it's apparently the nominative that is idomatic. No one says "loz uns". And no, I'm not mixing it up with the first person singular: There's also a "lomich"; I'm not sure I'll be able to use it accurately in context, but I think "lomich prubieren" would be "let me give it a try".
Home Questions Tags Users Unanswered. I read this part in a book: Lass uns gehen Lass uns sehen Lass uns hier setzen So: Which one is correct or more common? While searching for the answer in Google, I saw also "Lasst Definitiv nicht Lass uns hier setzen , sondern entweder Lass uns hier sitzen oder Lass uns uns hier hinsetzen. The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that we either paraphrase the entire thing, or, usually, I would actually put it in the question form mentioned above: Let's go for a coffee!
Mac 6, 17 Thank you for the answer. John Smithers said they're not colloquial as well, is that what you meant or you missed something after but?
I took "neither of these constructions" to refer to the suggestions in the book and wanted to add that down here the "lassen" derivates are not colloquial, too Lass uns einen Kuchen backen. Ich persönlich halte diese Phrase nach wie vor für schlechten Stil, und finde, man sollte die Sätze durch Konstruktionen ersetzen, die besser in einen deutschen Kontext passen: Willst du mit mir tanzen?
Komm, tanz mit mir! Ich verwende "Lass uns" ständig, ohne dass ich grade einen englischen Text übersetze oder Englisch denke. Neben "Komm, lass uns tanzen", wäre noch "Sollen wir tanzen? Nichtsdestotrotz, "Lass uns" ist keine zu wörtliche Übersetzung, sondern Alltagssprache.
Wenn du das für Alltagssprache hältst, dann glaube ich, dass es da regionale Unterschiede geben muss. Dort wo ich lebe Ost-Österreich tut das nämlich in den Ohren weh und ist alles andere als Alltagssprache. Ich muss Hubert recht geben. Als solches sollte man es durch einen Imperativ im Deutschen widergeben.
Das ist ja dann Imperativ Plural. Lasst uns ab jetzt einfach alles Wort-für-Wort übersetzen, dann wird alles einfacher. Hier war natürlich "lasst uns" richtig, aber nur weil ich uns alle meine. The difference between "lass" and "lasst" is the different use of "Du" and "Ihr". John Smithers 8, 30 An alternative that might sometimes sound better is "Wir sollten Is that a good alternative? I get the impression that the person is putting me under pressure by saying "wir sollten uns treffen", Is it right or I'm under the illusion?
This is considered to aid intuitive understanding. However, especially in mathematical physics, it is often more convenient to drop the assignment of explicit dimensions and express the quantities without dimensions, e.
Quantities having dimension 1, dimensionless quantities , regularly occur in sciences, and are formally treated within the field of dimensional analysis. In the nineteenth century, French mathematician Joseph Fourier and Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell led significant developments in the modern concepts of dimension and unit.
Later work by British physicists Osborne Reynolds and Lord Rayleigh contributed to the understanding of dimensionless numbers in physics. Numerous dimensionless numbers, mostly ratios, were coined in the early s, particularly in the areas of fluid mechanics and heat transfer.
Measuring ratios in the derived unit dB decibel finds widespread use nowadays. In the early s, the International Committee for Weights and Measures discussed naming the unit of 1 as the " uno ", but the idea of just introducing a new SI-name for 1 was dropped.
Dimensionless quantities are often obtained as ratios of quantities that are not dimensionless, but whose dimensions cancel out in the mathematical operation. A more complex example of such a ratio is engineering strain , a measure of physical deformation defined as a change in length divided by the initial length. Since both quantities have the dimension length , their ratio is dimensionless. In statistics the coefficient of variation is the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean and is used to measure the dispersion in the data.
A statement of this theorem is that any physical law can be expressed as an identity involving only dimensionless combinations ratios or products of the variables linked by the law e. If the dimensionless combinations' values changed with the systems of units, then the equation would not be an identity, and Buckingham's theorem would not hold. For the purposes of the experimenter, different systems that share the same description by dimensionless quantity are equivalent.
T s , and mass: Certain universal dimensioned physical constants, such as the speed of light in a vacuum, the universal gravitational constant , Planck's constant , Coulomb's constant , and Boltzmann's constant can be normalized to 1 if appropriate units for time , length , mass , charge , and temperature are chosen.
The resulting system of units is known as the natural units , specifically regarding these five constants, Planck units. However, not all physical constants can be normalized in this fashion. For example, the values of the following constants are independent of the system of units, cannot be defined, and can only be determined experimentally: Physics often uses dimensionless quantities to simplify the characterization of systems with multiple interacting physical phenomena.
Engineering, economics, and other fields often extend these ideas in design and analysis of the relevant systems.